5 years hard labour ?

[First_Toyota]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

Who, in turn, shall be replaced by another Government in however many years, and they shall scrap this set of "schemes" to bring in their own and the whole farce shall go round and round while none of them really address the critical (IMHO) "big" infrastructure etc. projects as I posted earlier.

All rather pathetic and sad.....

Grumpy old man shall fetch his cap and coat 😉

Another grumpy old man here…

Having seen, over the years, really important national ministries being the victims of political ping pong (or whiff whaff if you prefer!) I’ve often wondered why a Government at some point doesn’t legislate to take them out of direct Government control. For instance, giving health, defence, education and transport over to genuinely cross-party committees, with expert representatives from each sector (doctors, nurses, teachers, soldiers, train drivers etc.) could allow the genuine long-term planning that they need to succeed and it would be seen by most - removed from political interference - to actually be in the national interest. 

The alternative is benevolent dictatorship. I promise I’ll be benevolent, trust me…😇

[Bper]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

Who, in turn, shall be replaced by another Government in however many years, and they shall scrap this set of "schemes" to bring in their own and the whole farce shall go round and round while none of them really address the critical (IMHO) "big" infrastructure etc. projects as I posted earlier.

All rather pathetic and sad.....

Grumpy old man shall fetch his cap and coat 😉

It’s really frustrating to see various government schemes come and go without tackling the major infrastructure projects we need. It feels like we’re stuck in a cycle where each new administration just replaces the old plans with their own without making real progress. It’s disheartening. I’ve heard many sensible people who know exactly how to address both financial and infrastructure issues, but unfortunately, they’re not in government.Often, these people are ordinary members of the public, and what sets them apart is a sense of common sense that seems to be missing from those in power.

"Grumpy old man speaks the truth"😭

[Bper]

9 minutes ago, First_Toyota said:

Another grumpy old man here…

Having seen, over the years, really important national ministries being the victims of political ping pong (or whiff wharf if you prefer!) I’ve often wondered why a Government at some point doesn’t legislate to take them out of direct Government control. For instance, giving health, defence, education and transport over to genuinely cross-party committees, with expert representatives from each sector (doctors, nurses, teachers, soldiers, train drivers etc.) could allow the genuine long-term planning that they need in the national interest.

The alternative is benevolent dictatorship. I promise I’ll be benevolent, trust me…😇

Hi Ed,You’ve got a good point. It’s frustrating watching critical ministries like health, defense, education, and transport get tossed around with every political shift. Having cross party committees with experts from each field could really help with long term planning and keep things moving forward in the national interest.As for the benevolent dictatorship idea it sounds tempting, but what do they say “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”😃

[FROSTYBALLS]

32 minutes ago, Bper said:

It feels like we’re stuck in a cycle where each new administration just replaces the old plans with their own without making real progress.

This has been the case for years.

When I was in procurement for a government department, any new administration would want their own schemes in place despite, in reality, not being much different in terms of content, objectives, etc, etc. So we would go through major tendering exercises to award new contracts under the auspices of new programmes. Contracts were usually three years in part to cater for future changes in government.

[Cyker]

That's the worst thing about it - That this cycle has been going on for decades, wasting the same time, money and resources they claim they don't have enough of yet apparently have enough of they can waste it with such asinine procedures - and they still haven't learned anything.

That's partly why I was hoping for a hung parliament, to try and force them to learn to co-operate.

Having differences in ideology is all well and good but even primary school children learn to put aside their differences and compromise to work on a common goal, instead of burning down everything until they get their own way.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

7 minutes ago, Cyker said:

That's partly why I was hoping for a hung parliament, to try and force them to learn to co-operate

Doesn't happen. If a coalition is formed, there is usually a stronger partner. Some give and take occurs as to which policies are carried forwards and which are dropped, but the stronger party always has an upper hand.

Even the coalition government (Conservative/Lib Dem) of 2010, had the same issue.

Then there are the consultants who get involved in advising on the 'new' products, strategies, etc. Quite often some of these end up working for the providers once new contracts are awarded.

Never ending merry-go-round.

[Bper]

54 minutes ago, Cyker said:

That's the worst thing about it - That this cycle has been going on for decades, wasting the same time, money and resources they claim they don't have enough of yet apparently have enough of they can waste it with such asinine procedures - and they still haven't learned anything.

That's partly why I was hoping for a hung parliament, to try and force them to learn to co-operate.

Having differences in ideology is all well and good but even primary school children learn to put aside their differences and compromise to work on a common goal, instead of burning down everything until they get their own way.

 

You're right, it’s infuriating to watch the same mistakes get made over and over, wasting resources that could be used so much better. A hung parliament could have been a good way to push them into cooperating for once. It’s funny as you mentioned kids are taught to compromise and work together, but our leaders often seem stuck in their ways, refusing to budge. We could really use more of that basic teamwork in politics.😃

[Bper]

45 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Doesn't happen. If a coalition is formed, there is usually a stronger partner. Some give and take occurs as to which policies are carried forwards and which are dropped, but the stronger party always has an upper hand.

Even the coalition government (Conservative/Lib Dem) of 2010, had the same issue.

Then there are the consultants who get involved in advising on the 'new' products, strategies, etc. Quite often some of these end up working for the providers once new contracts are awarded.

Never ending merry-go-round.

You’re absolutely right. Even in coalitions, the stronger party usually calls the shots, so it’s tough to get true cooperation. The 2010 Conservative/Lib Dem government definitely showed how one side can still have the upper hand. And those consultants it's frustrating how they often seem to circle back to profit from the very changes they propose. It really does feel like a constant loop with little real progress. The real question is how can this change for the better and secondly who is willing to do it.

[Cyker]

58 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Doesn't happen. If a coalition is formed, there is usually a stronger partner. Some give and take occurs as to which policies are carried forwards and which are dropped, but the stronger party always has an upper hand.

Even the coalition government (Conservative/Lib Dem) of 2010, had the same issue.

Then there are the consultants who get involved in advising on the 'new' products, strategies, etc. Quite often some of these end up working for the providers once new contracts are awarded.

Never ending merry-go-round.

Not a coalition, a *hung* parliament, as in nobody has a majority and nobody's able to gain a majority through some lame 'coalition', so they are forced to negotiate and compromise instead of just forcing things through, or nothing will get done (Which in itself would be a blessing - It always feels like just as start to get used to a new system, they change it again for one even more asinine!).

I hear that sort of situation is a more common thing in central/northern european countries, but is practically unheard of here (It's certainly never been a thing in my lifetime!).

But yeah that coalition was a disaster for the LibDems - They could have had this election, or at least gotten a lot more seats, if they hadn't formed that coalition and then showed everyone how spineless they were by totally screwing over their primary voter base and betraying them to the conservatives. That cost them a big chunk of their voter base and I don't think they've recovered even after all this time...!

 

[Primus1]

Perhaps people won’t forget the disasters created by the tories, brexit, Covid handling and partygate ect, and labour will get a second and maybe a third term and implement policies for the benefit of all..

[FROSTYBALLS]

In the case of a hung parliament, there will either be a coalition formed (as in 2010), or a minority government (as in 2017).

[FROSTYBALLS]

11 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Perhaps people won’t forget the disasters created by the tories, brexit, Covid handling and partygate ect, and labour will get a second and maybe a third term and implement policies for the benefit of all..

Brexit was caused by the referendum.

Cannot see that Labour would have performed any better with Covid, as there were instances of partygate on both sides.

Labour policies this year haven't benefited all - ask any pensioner, waspi, etc .......

[Bper]

35 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Not a coalition, a *hung* parliament, as in nobody has a majority and nobody's able to gain a majority through some lame 'coalition', so they are forced to negotiate and compromise instead of just forcing things through, or nothing will get done (Which in itself would be a blessing - It always feels like just as start to get used to a new system, they change it again for one even more asinine!).

I hear that sort of situation is a more common thing in central/northern european countries, but is practically unheard of here (It's certainly never been a thing in my lifetime!).

But yeah that coalition was a disaster for the LibDems - They could have had this election, or at least gotten a lot more seats, if they hadn't formed that coalition and then showed everyone how spineless they were by totally !Removed! over their primary voter base and betraying them to the conservatives. That cost them a big chunk of their voter base and I don't think they've recovered even after all this time...!

 

You’re right about the difference between a hung parliament and a coalition. I think the idea of forcing politicians to actually negotiate and compromise could be a good thing. It’s frustrating when big changes get rushed through without much thought, and it would be nice to see more balance. I believe that this kind of situation is more common in places like Germany, where they seem to be better at making coalitions work. It’s definitely not something we’re used to here.And yes, the LibDems really shot themselves in the foot with that coalition. They alienated so many of their core voters by teaming up with the Conservatives. It’s hard to believe how much they’ve struggled to bounce back since then. Who knows if they’ll ever fully recover?

IMO, they need a new leader,Ed Davey and his refusal to apologise for his part in the post office scandal really p***ed many voters off and they won't forget.😃

[Bper]

31 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Perhaps people won’t forget the disasters created by the tories, brexit, Covid handling and partygate ect, and labour will get a second and maybe a third term and implement policies for the benefit of all..

Well it's not going to well at the moment is it.?☹️

[Primus1]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

Well it's not going to well at the moment is it.?☹️

Well, there’s a lot of mess to deal with..

[First_Toyota]

17 hours ago, Primus1 said:

Perhaps people won’t forget the disasters created by the tories, brexit, Covid handling and partygate ect, and labour will get a second and maybe a third term and implement policies for the benefit of all..

I think it is true that multi-term Government is (generally) a good thing. It allows more stability, and gives Government the chance to implement properly - or indeed poorly - the things that it values and prioritises, ie the manifesto. However, such is the nature of modern politics, few if any people welcome any Government they didn’t vote for. In the past, most people would wish an incoming Government well, but not these days. Everything is far too ‘tribal’ and the internet simply fuels the divisions, essentially setting one group up to (allegedly) benefit/suffer at the expense of another.

I’m also sceptical of the notion that any Government, of any political colour, actually wants to implement policies “…for the benefit of all.” Firstly, it’s unlikely to be possible given the choices any Government has to make. Secondly, the main objective of any politician and political party is actually to remain in power, the old adage being ‘…you can’t do anything from opposition.’ Thus, they implement policies to give them the maximum chance of re-election, and that usually means a choice to favour one group rather than another. Whether we agree with the policy or not, the new Labour Government has made an active choice to prioritise £30-40bn for public sector pay increases above other spending, including the universal Winter Fuel Allowance. Such is the job of any Government, but it is already clear that “…benefit for all…” either isn't possible or isn’t politically desirable.

Moving onto legacy, I’m afraid all incoming Governments have a vested interest to paint the darkest possible picture of their inheritance - why wouldn’t they? Some elements will be true, others exaggerated, and some will be untrue. The last Conservative Government was still blaming the response to the 2008 Financial Crisis on Labour, “…who failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining…” when it left office. 

Scandals? I could go all the way back to Profumo, but in more recent Labour history how about ‘cash for honours’ or the Formula 1 tobacco advertising scandal, or even the Iraq War? Again, the way of the modern world is to magnify and extend this type of issue, with the sole intention of damaging the other side…and increasingly the tactic works. ‘Partygate’ was clearly a very bad thing, but I do feel it was exaggerated, initially from within the Conservative Party faction who were always ‘anti-Boris.’

I’m afraid that all Governments get tired. After three terms the Conservatives were in that space, and as they tried to rebound they simply entered a death spiral. The same happened to Gordon Brown, and Margaret Thatcher, and…well, pretty much every Government since Bonar Law!

It’s also worth remembering here that a major ‘crisis’ almost never helps the incumbent, regardless of who they are. After 2008 (Obama was the exception, but it was very early for him) the majority of Governments were punished by the electorate and left office. It was the same with COVID, just look at New Zealand. Their response was lauded across the world, but when the election came their people said otherwise. I wouldn’t wish a major crisis on any politician as it is virtually impossible to get the response perfect, and again any and all ‘failures’ will be magnified and exaggerated. There is a theme here…

Finally, the UK exit from the EU. Regardless of which side of the debate people were on, to call it a ‘disaster’ at this point is another example of factionalism and division. Sensible non-partisan commentators note no real conclusion can be reached for at least twenty years, and even then it depends on how Government and the EU implement the relationship going forward. Then there are the unknowns of future ‘events’  and the impact of those. Yes, people will draw conclusions on both sides, which is natural, but to present an opinion as a fact at this point isn’t really helpful for any of us.

I worked ‘with’ the EU for a number of years, and it has some good points…but trust me, it also has some really bad points. The key question is whether the pursuit of economic growth in the richer Northern European member states is worth the political intervention in all member states. Some will say yes, others no. My personal view as a traditional ‘liberal’ (with a small ‘l’) is that free trade should absolutely be sought over protectionism, but that trade ‘blocks’ generally inhibit genuine global free trade, instead simply advancing protectionism within their member group. One group vs another group. Whether we’re talking about UK politics, or European politics, or global politics, the issues are largely the same just to different scales.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, First_Toyota said:

I think it is true that multi-term Government is (generally) a good thing. It allows more stability, and gives Government the chance to implement properly - or indeed poorly - the things that it values and prioritises, ie the manifesto. However, such is the nature of modern politics, few if any people welcome any Government they didn’t vote for. In the past, most people would wish an incoming Government well, but not these days. Everything is far too ‘tribal’ and the internet simply fuels the divisions, essentially setting one group up to (allegedly) benefit/suffer at the expense of another.

I’m also sceptical of the notion that any Government, of any political colour, actually wants to implement policies “…for the benefit of all.” Firstly, it’s unlikely to be possible given the choices any Government has to make. Secondly, the main objective of any politician and political party is actually to remain in power, the old adage being ‘…you can’t do anything from opposition.’ Thus, they implement policies to give them the maximum chance of re-election, and that usually means a choice to favour one group rather than another. Whether we agree with the policy or not, the new Labour Government has made an active choice to prioritise £30-40bn for public sector pay increases above other spending, including the universal Winter Fuel Allowance. Such is the job of any Government, but it is already clear that “…benefit for all…” either isn't possible or isn’t politically desirable.

Moving onto legacy, I’m afraid all incoming Governments have a vested interest to paint the darkest possible picture of their inheritance - why wouldn’t they? Some elements will be true, others exaggerated, and some will be untrue. The last Conservative Government was still blaming the response to the 2008 Financial Crisis on Labour, “…who failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining…” when it left office. 

Scandals? I could go all the way back to Profumo, but in more recent Labour history how about ‘cash for honours’ or the Formula 1 tobacco advertising scandal, or even the Iraq War? Again, the way of the modern world is to magnify and extend this type of issue, with the sole intention of damaging the other side…and increasingly the tactic works. ‘Partygate’ was clearly a very bad thing, but I do feel it was exaggerated, initially from within the Conservative Party faction who were always ‘anti-Boris.’

I’m afraid that all Governments get tired. After three terms the Conservatives were in that space, and as they tried to rebound they simply entered a death spiral. The same happened to Gordon Brown, and Margaret Thatcher, and…well, pretty much every Government since Bonar Law!

It’s also worth remembering here that a major ‘crisis’ almost never helps the incumbent, regardless of who they are. After 2008 (Obama was the exception, but it was very early for him) the majority of Governments were punished by the electorate and left office. It was the same with COVID, just look at New Zealand. Their response was lauded across the world, but when the election came their people said otherwise. I wouldn’t wish a major crisis on any politician as it is virtually impossible to get the response perfect, and again any and all ‘failures’ will be magnified and exaggerated. There is a theme here…

Finally, the UK exit from the EU. Regardless of which side of the debate people were on, to call it a ‘disaster’ at this point is another example of factionalism and division. Sensible non-partisan commentators note no real conclusion can be reached for at least twenty years, and even then it depends on how Government and the EU implement the relationship going forward. Then there are the unknowns of future ‘events’  and the impact of those. Yes, people will draw conclusions on both sides, which is natural, but to present an opinion as a fact at this point isn’t really helpful for any of us.

I worked ‘with’ the EU for a number of years, and it has some good points…but trust me, it also has some really bad points. The key question is whether the pursuit of economic growth in the richer Northern European member states is worth the political intervention in all member states. Some will say yes, others no. My personal view as a traditional ‘liberal’ (with a small ‘l’) is that free trade should absolutely be sought over protectionism, but that trade ‘blocks’ generally inhibit genuine global free trade, instead simply advancing protectionism within their member group. One group vs another group. Whether we’re talking about UK politics, or European politics, or global politics, the issues are largely the same just to different scales.

Hi Ed,You have raised a number of issues here. I think there’s definitely value in a government staying in power long enough to follow through on its plans, but it also seems like that can make political divisions even sharper, especially with the way people engage online now.When it comes to the idea of governing ‘for the benefit of all,’ it’s hard to disagree that this is an almost impossible task. Every decision seems to help some while leaving others feeling overlooked. Do you think there’s any way for politicians to manage the balance between doing what’s best for the country as a whole and keeping their chances of re-election strong?As for how crises affect those in power, I can see how it’s a no-win situation public expectations are so high that any misstep gets blown out of proportion. It seems like there’s always going to be criticism, no matter what.Regarding Brexit, I understand the point that we’re still in the early days of seeing its full impact. With your background working with the EU, do you think there’s a possibility of the UK moving toward closer cooperation with Europe in the future, or are we too far down a separate path now?🙂

[First_Toyota]

41 minutes ago, Bper said:

Regarding Brexit, I understand the point that we’re still in the early days of seeing its full impact. With your background working with the EU, do you think there’s a possibility of the UK moving toward closer cooperation with Europe in the future, or are we too far down a separate path now?🙂

To be clear, I worked with a small part of the EU, implementing specific directives in the UK. It did give me an insight though, and I have a relative who worked directly for the EU as a translator and some of her stories were fascinating - but likely not much different to stories that could be told about the UK Parliament or any other Government tbh.

My personal view is that the EU faces something of a challenge over the next 10-20 years, and how it reacts to that will determine the UK-EU relationship. The EU (as an organisation) wants ever greater political integration, but I’m not convinced that either a majority or a sizeable minority of voters within the EU see things that way, witness the protests in the last round of EU elections. 

Personally, I think the EU should step back from the brink and listen before another member state looks to exit. Economic union, what used to be the EEC and then the EC, I think most people could see value in that as long as it benefitted them. That was fine while new member states were joining, and rich Northern European nations could use that free moving labour to fuel their own economic growth and growth for the block - but now, with the richer nations in decline and the once poorer nations wanting more equality that is where the major challenge is imho. Add to that the power and growing global influence of China, India, and Brazil, with war and strained relations with Russia…it’s almost a perfect storm.

I think there is benefit in a close relationship with all our neighbours, but I don’t believe there is a need for political integration. I also think the UK Government should continue to prioritise global trade and relationships, especially with the Commonwealth, in parallel with the EU relationship.

Given the strength of feeling in the UK eight years on from the original vote, any UK Government is treading a fine line. Rather them than me!

[Bper]

1 hour ago, First_Toyota said:

To be clear, I worked with a small part of the EU, implementing specific directives in the UK. It did give me an insight though, and I have a relative who worked directly for the EU as a translator and some of her stories were fascinating - but likely not much different to stories that could be told about the UK Parliament or any other Government tbh.

My personal view is that the EU faces something of a challenge over the next 10-20 years, and how it reacts to that will determine the UK-EU relationship. The EU (as an organisation) wants ever greater political integration, but I’m not convinced that either a majority or a sizeable minority of voters within the EU see things that way, witness the protests in the last round of EU elections. 

Personally, I think the EU should step back from the brink and listen before another member state looks to exit. Economic union, what used to be the EEC and then the EC, I think most people could see value in that as long as it benefitted them. That was fine while new member states were joining, and rich Northern European nations could use that free moving labour to fuel their own economic growth and growth for the block - but now, with the richer nations in decline and the once poorer nations wanting more equality that is where the major challenge is imho. Add to that the power and growing global influence of China, India, and Brazil, with war and strained relations with Russia…it’s almost a perfect storm.

I think there is benefit in a close relationship with all our neighbours, but I don’t believe there is a need for political integration. I also think the UK Government should continue to prioritise global trade and relationships, especially with the Commonwealth, in parallel with the EU relationship.

Given the strength of feeling in the UK eight years on from the original vote, any UK Government is treading a fine line. Rather them than me!

It’s interesting to hear about your direct experience with EU directives and the insights from your relative. It’s clear the EU faces significant challenges ahead, especially regarding political integration versus economic benefits.I agree that the EU’s push for greater political integration could be a tough sell, particularly given the varied opinions across member states. The issues you mentioned rising nationalism, economic disparities, and global shifts definitely complicate the landscape.I also think a close relationship with neighboring countries makes sense, but like you, I don’t see the need for deeper political integration. Balancing strong global trade ties with a strategic approach to the EU seems wise. It’s indeed a tricky position for the UK government, trying to manage domestic expectations while navigating international relationships.

[Cyker]

No party has had a clean record - I still haven't forgotten it was Labour that started the slow death spiral of the education sector by taking funding away from universities and making them businesses, requiring fees, and beginning the stealth-privatisation of secondary and primary schools with their 'Academy' project to try and off-load the financial burden onto private 'Academy' companies. Things you'd expect from a conservative government.

This just cemented in my mind that none of our existing political parties are worthy of control as, given a choice between the right thing and the easy thing, they'll always do the easy thing, especially if it means they can kick the proverbial can down the road. The can is pretty battered at this point.

 

I think the EU's biggest problem is the bureaucracy - The problem is bureaucracy tends to generate more bureaucracy and it's hard to avoid that temptation so you end up wasting untold amounts of time and money with new departments and wossname groups springing up on the way to reach a decision that you may as well have just flipped a coin for, for all the good that did, when something they didn't think of (Because there will always be something) comes along and forces them to reverse the decision or creates massive loopholes in it anyway.

Generally measure twice cut once is a good adage to live by, but when you're measuring 3000 times and still not getting anywhere 10 years later, sometimes it's better to just suck it and see!

 

[Bernard Foy]

It's been quite interesting reading the comments on this subject. 

I once worked in a local pub, and two subjects were totally banned from discussion one was politics and the other religion, we ran an orderly show 😛.

[Cyker]

Funnily enough, this is the case in most of the forums I frequent due to the massive flamewars that tend to result  

The fact that this forum allows such topics is extremely unusual, and even more unusual is the fact that none of the threads have degenerated into the vicious name calling and personal insults that usually results - It is a testament to how mature and well mannered everyone on here is!  

You're all a great bunch of people  

[Bernard Foy]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

Funnily enough, this is the case in most of the forums I frequent due to the massive flamewars that tend to result  

The fact that this forum allows such topics is extremely unusual, and even more unusual is the fact that none of the threads have degenerated into the vicious name calling and personal insults that usually results - It is a testament to how mature and well mannered everyone on here is!  

You're all a great bunch of people  

Have to agree with you Cyker, a very informative and mostly intelligent and friendly discussion, quite the opposite of the house of commons 🤣🤪

[Cyker]

To be fair I've been in bar fights more intelligent and friendly than most house of commons debates...   

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Cyker said:

No party has had a clean record - I still haven't forgotten it was Labour that started the slow death spiral of the education sector by taking funding away from universities and making them businesses, requiring fees, and beginning the stealth-privatisation of secondary and primary schools with their 'Academy' project to try and off-load the financial burden onto private 'Academy' companies. Things you'd expect from a conservative government.

This just cemented in my mind that none of our existing political parties are worthy of control as, given a choice between the right thing and the easy thing, they'll always do the easy thing, especially if it means they can kick the proverbial can down the road. The can is pretty battered at this point.

 

I think the EU's biggest problem is the bureaucracy - The problem is bureaucracy tends to generate more bureaucracy and it's hard to avoid that temptation so you end up wasting untold amounts of time and money with new departments and wossname groups springing up on the way to reach a decision that you may as well have just flipped a coin for, for all the good that did, when something they didn't think of (Because there will always be something) comes along and forces them to reverse the decision or creates massive loopholes in it anyway.

Generally measure twice cut once is a good adage to live by, but when you're measuring 3000 times and still not getting anywhere 10 years later, sometimes it's better to just suck it and see!

 

On the subject of schools, I’m reminded of a project I worked on back in the early 2000s—a refurbishment and new build school construction carried out under the then popular PFI (Private Finance Initiative). This school seemed to have no expense spared. It had the best of everything, from state-of-the-art IT systems to fully stocked libraries and science rooms equipped with every modern piece of technology possible.The crazy thing was that after the building work was completed, I overheard the headteacher complaining that she couldn’t use several of the classrooms because she didn’t have enough money left in her budget to pay for the additional hours she needed them for.