When you order Universal Childcare from Wish...

[ProfessorDavey]

So was the Labour Party ok to suggest it?

To suggest what?

If you give me a specific example of a previous Labour childcare policy then I'll give you my view.

[ProfessorDavey]

So was the Labour Party ok to suggest it?

I note you've started replying to your own posts now - seems a little odd to me.

[Nearly Sane]

I note you've started replying to your own posts now - seems a little odd to me.

no answer?

[Nearly Sane]

To suggest what?

If you give me a specific example of a previous Labour childcare policy then I'll give you my view.

That they previously suggested universal mlchildcars and now they aren't?

[ProfessorDavey]

That they previously suggested universal mlchildcars and now they aren't?

I presume you mean universal free childcare.

In which case can you point me to where they'd previously suggested universal free childcare please.

[Nearly Sane]

I presume you mean universal free childcare.

In which case can you point me to where they'd previously suggested universal free childcare please.

https://archive.vn/QODIf

[ProfessorDavey]

https://archive.vn/QODIf

Of course, I've already read this article, given that it is directly referred to in the link in the OP.

I suspect you haven't actually read it, because it does not say that Labour are committed to universal free childcare at all. Indeed the only time the word 'free' is used is to describe the current 15 hours free policy. There is a focus on the policy in Estonia, which most definitely is not one of universal free child-care.

And actually back in March Labour clearly indicated that their approach wasn't more free stuff:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-ditch-broken-tory-childcare-29414004


'She said it was time for a complete overhaul of the "complex and confused" system - and "bolting on" more hours would not fix issues of provision and cost.
"More “free hours” for parents, means more underfunded hours for nurseries, more costs piled on to providers struggling to deliver services as they are now, and more need for cross-subsidy.

"The model they have built fails everyone."

And this article makes it clear that there has been no U-turn:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/whats-behind-labours-childcare-u-turn/

'Party sources, though, say Labour has never made a specific pledge of universal free childcare and that it is examining a number of policy options for its manifesto including possible targeting of support.'

NS - you seem to have fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the journalist book - say that something has been ruled out and people will assume it was previously ruled in, even if it never was.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just for context - unlike universal free childcare, Labour did previously commit to abolishing university tuition fees and also to spend £28b per year on green investment from day 1. Both policy positions have been dropped although the green investment is a more subtle change - with the investment ramping up over the early years.

So it would be fair to describe both as u-turns. However I'm happy with both as in my view both previous positions weren't well thought through. On university funding you cannot simply abolish fees without massive (frankly unaffordable) cost, as you'd have to deal with all those students with accumulated debts as well as those going in the future. Also the current fee level doesn't cover the cost of delivering the provision (like 'free' childcare) so there needs to be a more holistic and careful consideration of how we fund our universities, rather than a knee-jerk, headline grabbing 'abolish tuition fees' soundbite.

The green investment change is simply pragmatically sensible as you simply cannot announce a programme and open an investment tap - some of the projects worthy of investment may take years in planning.