EFFICIENCY: Success not all due to money

editorial image

In his recent column, Ian Lavery MP tells us of so many improvements and successes that Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, was able to see for himself in Northumberland, “despite severe Government austerity and forced reductions in local authority funding”, (Morpeth Herald, April 6).

It appears that the MP for Wansbeck realises that the reduction in that funding has been forced upon the Conservative Government to greatly reduce the deficit left by a previous Labour Government, and so reduce borrowing.

He also reminds us about the reduction in funding for education.

Is it not a fact that almost all school leavers in the last five years have moved straight into employment or into further education?

Credit is therefore due to the teachers and education administrators because this has been achieved by more efficient deployment of funds and a saving in teaching costs by an increase in class numbers.

An increase from, say, 32 to 36 pupils per class would be a 12.5 per cent saving, which in a commercial situation would be considered an excellent achievement.

This illustrates that savings can me made by wiser deployment of people and that overall success is not totally proportional to the amount of our money that is, in many instances, simply thrown at public service problems or to attract an executive who happens to have ‘a good track record’ in another public authority.

When the cost of borrowing to overcome the remaining part of the present deficit is brought under reasonable control then Government investments must be in commercial and industrial education to teach sales people to enable the country to sell its way in the whole world again.

Is this not the main reason for our leaving the EU?

There is no point in manufacturing products or providing services that are not sold competitively to overseas customers, which is Britain’s only source of income.

It is noticeable that Labour people always seem to talk about ‘cuts’ and never about efficiency savings or redeployment of people to enable public services to be improved.

Ian is quite correct to indicate that Northumberland is still a wonderful county in which to live and work.

This is despite the Labour-controlled county council, which would spend council taxpayers’ money on ridiculous projects such as the County Hall sell-off in Morpeth and the construction of unnecessary offices in the Labour heartland of Ashington.

l Would it not be more sensible for Bridgett Gubbins to relocate to north of the Scottish border instead of her suggestion of moving the border to Hadrian’s Wall? (Morpeth Herald, April 6).

It appears from her letter that Scottish King Stephen only ruled Northumberland for 18 minutes.

Does Bridgett want to become Scottish now that Scotland is self-sufficient in electricity from renewable sources?

It is remembered how vehemently she opposed the proposed nuclear power station at Druridge Bay, which would have provided employment for local people.

But that may still be possible after the coal has been extracted from the same site.

The younger people of the area will have to wait and see.

Norman Bateman

Low Espley