The first budget by a female chancellor, and the first for the new government would be big news at any time. But with the long lead-in time, speculation really has been running rife.
Some commentators have been criticising the government for not having detailed plans in place for after they took power supporting an early budget. I’m more in the camp of being careful what you wish for, because there are so many complex areas of policy, and of course funding, that need attention.
To expect an incoming government to be ready with solutions for them all is probably unrealistic, but certainly undesirable.
I’ve seen too many policy ideas presented like classic a Blue Peter craft project: “here’s one we prepared earlier”. Rarely do those policies work well unless there is engagement with the people implementing them, and even better with the people who are meant to benefit.
What looks neat, clear-cut and simple in Whitehall often makes a lot less sense on the ground.
But to engage, listen, learn and co-create takes time. And after a long period in which college leaders have felt they weren’t being listened to, there is an expectation of change. That engagement is happening, and at pace, but it will still take some time to reach conclusions – and so it should.
In post-16 and skills policy we have plenty going on: a review of curriculum and assessment, the establishment of Skills England, reforms to the apprenticeship levy, the new youth guarantee, devolution, the industrial strategy, a skills strategy, local growth plans and probably others too.
On all of these, it feels to me as if we are being engaged and our views and proposals being carefully considered.
As for the budget itself, we’ve all been hearing the chancellor’s warning of the parlous state of the finances they have inherited, something forewarned before the election by Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies and many others.
The only thing for certain is that expectations are low
The only thing for certain is that expectations are low of any new or significant investment. That could be the tactic, or it could be the reality; I’m expecting a few voter-friendly rabbits to emerge from the chancellor’s red box, but not too many, and not with big price tags.
Our asks for the budget were modest and realistic: help with pay to at least match the school teacher pay award of 5.5 per cent (costing about £250m), VAT reimbursement like schools (returning about £210m to college coffers) and full funding for the rising numbers of 16- to 18-year-olds.
Even achieving one of those feels like it might be a win, but in reality all three are hard to argue against. The trouble is that there are very strong arguments like ours across so many public services and nowhere near enough tax to pay for them all.We all know that there are lots of tough choices to be made.
Next week, the chancellor sets out government spending for 2025-26 only. By March, she will have plans for the next few years, and for that our asks will be much more ambitious.
In March, we need the chancellor to show that she views our sector as offering a strong and vital return on investment, not a cost. We need to have shown her and other cabinet ministers that their missions of economic growth, net zero, safer streets, wider opportunities and the NHS cannot be delivered without investing in people.
Colleges and further education are vital drivers across all of those missions. The sector helps young people and adults develop themselves as citizens and skilled workers, supports employers to innovate and improve productivity and helps develop stronger, more tolerant and cohesive communities.
That’s the vision I want the chancellor to believe in. Because if she does, then the investment will have to follow – if not this month, then in March and beyond.
Your thoughts