When you order Universal Childcare from Wish...

[Nearly Sane]

When we said...what we meant was...


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/13/labour-rules-out-universal-childcare-for-young-children-in-fiscal-credibility-drive

[jeremyp]

Labour has ruled out offering universal free childcare for children over nine months old but is considering a means-tested offer

That seems pretty sensible to me. Rich people don't need the government to pay for their child care.

[Nearly Sane]

That seems pretty sensible to me. Rich people don't need the government to pay for their child care.

The issue with means testing has always been whether it might discourage those that should have it from applying. It creates a hurdle.

And while I agree with the idea that it should be looked at, the problem is making a commitment and then rowing it back. That in doing so, there isn't an agreed policy just makes ot look a mess.

[ProfessorDavey]

When we said...what we meant was...


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/13/labour-rules-out-universal-childcare-for-young-children-in-fiscal-credibility-drive

I was really pleased to see this as it suggests that Labour may actually want to have a proper adult conversation about the best way to provide and fund child care.

What we have had up to now is naive electioneering - effectively government and opposition trying to 'bribe' parents with the promise of more 'free stuff' without consideration of who will actually pay for it, and critically without proper consideration of how much is costs childcare providers to provide a place. So we've had a two-way conversation - government/opposition with parents, rather than a three way conversation between government/opposition, parents and childcare providers.

So I think many of you know, in another part of my life I an co-owner and Director of a Nursery, so I am exceptionally well acquainted with the challenges facing childcare providers.

The current model (in England) provides all parents with 15 hrs free childcare for 38 weeks a year from age 3. Some parents get more hours or can get free provision from age 2, but this is means tested. However the big issue is that nurseries are given funding to provide that free provision that doesn't actually meet the costs of providing the childcare.

So nurseries, most of which are private organisations, lose money on those 'free' hours. They can cope because most parents will require childcare beyond the 15hrs, 38 weeks a year and this is charged at a level that balances the loss for those 15 hrs. But if a government or opposition promises more 'free stuff' then nurseries have more hours when they are losing money and less opportunity to recoup that through the further hours. Many nurseries are teetering on the edge of viability already and additional 'free' stuff is likely to put them under. So under the current model unless government is actually prepared to fund the free hours at the cost that it takes to deliver them (and certainly the government figures simply don't stack up) then parents, who think they will be benefiting from more 'free stuff' will actually find it impossible to find childcare provision as it is no longer financially viable to run a nursery.

The current model only works (and only just works) if the number of free hours are limited and therefore most parents are also paying for additional hours.

[ProfessorDavey]

The issue with means testing has always been whether it might discourage those that should have it from applying. It creates a hurdle.

And while I agree with the idea that it should be looked at, the problem is making a commitment and then rowing it back. That in doing so, there isn't an agreed policy just makes ot look a mess.

I'd much prefer that an unworkable policy is scrapped.

And realistically there isn't a commitment until we get to the manifesto stage.

I'm actually really pleased to see the opposition approach on this one and the decision to ramp up green investment rather that claim they could spend the maximum amount all from day one. Both seem like grown up, adult approaches aimed at solutions that might actually work rather than grab headlines to attract voters only to be ditched, or fail to be met, in government.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd much prefer that an unworkable policy is scrapped.

And realistically there isn't a commitment until we get to the manifesto stage.

I'm actually really pleased to see the opposition approach on this one and the decision to ramp up green investment rather that claim they could spend the maximum amount all from day one. Both seem like grown up, adult approaches aimed at solutions that might actually work rather than grab headlines to attract voters only to be ditched, or fail to be met, in government.

So you are pleased that a party announces something that you regard as nonsense and then rows it back without specifics?

[ProfessorDavey]

So you are pleased that a party announces something that you regard as nonsense and then rows it back without specifics?

I am pleased that they seem to be looking to develop sensible and workable proposals. And the worst thing is for a party to promise stuff they cannot deliver and not pull back on this when in opposition and before they are making that promise in an election manifesto.

Realistically I think it is very difficult for opposition parties to make very specific promises, particularly those that involve major spending commitments (rather than general directions of travel) a long way out from a general election, simply because they don't know what situation they will find when they take over. A year ago we wouldn't have expected Truss to have crashed the economy and in doing so have reduced the ability for a new government to spend/invest by billions. An opposition who blindly continues with spending plans that might have worked pre-Truss but won't work post-Truss is either naive or being dishonest with the public.

[Nearly Sane]

I am pleased that they seem to be looking to develop sensible and workable proposals. And the worst thing is for a party to promise stuff they cannot deliver and not pull back on this when in opposition and before they are making that promise in an election manifesto.

Realistically I think it is very difficult for opposition parties to make very specific promises (rather than general directions of travel) a long way out from a general election, simply because they don't know what situation they will find when they take over. A year ago we wouldn't have expected Truss to have crashed the economy and in doing so have reduced the ability for a new government to spend/invest by billions. An opposition who blindly continues with spending plans that might have worked pre-Truss but won't work post-Truss is either naive or being dishonest with the public.

So the party announced something that you think they couldn't deliver, and you think pulling back from that would be bad, but when they pull back from it you cheer.

[SteveH]

That seems pretty sensible to me. Rich people don't need the government to pay for their child care.

That's what the Tories always say, but means-testing benefits always affects the poor worst. Realistically, some things should be means-tested, but we should always resist the extension of means testing. The rich don't need the NHS, but I'd resist like hell any attempt to abolish the principle of universal free-at-point-of-use healthcare.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the party announced something that you think they couldn't deliver, and you think pulling back from that would be bad, but when they pull back from it you cheer.

Eh - what are you on about.

Of course it would be best if oppositions always made sensible proposals which are deliverable and nothing changes which would render them undeliverable between the point when they original propose something and actual being in power - e.g. the current government crashing the economy, or covid hitting, or massive spikes in energy costs etc etc.

But back in the real world - I'd much prefer that an opposition revises it's proposals if and when the circumstances that they'd take over when they attained office changes. And also if, following more detailed consultation they recognise that those proposals aren't actually workable.

I think that seems to be a pretty sensible and grown up approach. You seem, on the other hand, to think it is unacceptable for a party in opposition to change its proposals (that they derived in a pre-covid, pre-Ukraine and pre-Truss world) even if it is clear that they won't work in the real, current post-covid, post-Ukraine and post-Truss world.

[Nearly Sane]

Eh - what are you on about.

Of course it would be best if oppositions always made sensible proposals which are deliverable and nothing changes which would render them undeliverable between the point when they original propose something and actual being in power - e.g. the current government crashing the economy, or covid hitting, or massive spikes in energy costs etc etc.

But back in the real world - I'd much prefer that an opposition revises it's proposals if and when the circumstances that they'd take over when they attained office changes. And also if, following more detailed consultation they recognise that those proposals aren't actually workable.

I think that seems to be a pretty sensible and grown up approach. You seem, on the other hand, to think it is unacceptable for a party in opposition to change its proposals (that they derived in a pre-covid, pre-Ukraine and pre-Truss world) even if it is clear that they won't work in the real, current post-covid, post-Ukraine and post-Truss world.

No, I think making undeliverable promises is bad. You think that is great if you then row them back.

[ProfessorDavey]

That seems pretty sensible to me. Rich people don't need the government to pay for their child care.

Actually that is what already happens although the funding model is highly problematic and the justification is somewhat confused.

Everyone - regardless of income - gets 15 hrs per week free for 38 weeks a year from when your child reaches the age of three. Now that actually makes no sense from a childcare perspective - most parents will work more than 38 weeks a year, and why only from age 3.

Actually the original justification was that this was about early years education, not childcare. Basically there is no requirement for the state to provide a nursery school place for every child (as there is from reception age onwards) however it was deemed important that every parent should be able to send their nursery age child for early years education regardless of income. A typical early years setting (whether in a state school or private) will provide a three-hour educational session each day during term time. That's where the 15 hours per week, 38 weeks per year comes from.

It was never intended as child care, but as early years education, but the whole system has become blurred.

But then there is the funding - the amount a nursery receives (average is about £4.60 per hour) is way below the cost of delivering the provision - it is estimated that a typical nursery makes a loss of around £2.31 for every funded 'free' hour. They can only stay afloat by recouping this loss against non-funded hours. And the situation is getting worse - despite inflation running at about 10% our local authority increased the hourly rate by less than 1%.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I think making undeliverable promises is bad. You think that is great if you then row them back.

But you seem to prefer that they didn't row back on them, which seems much, much worse.

And if circumstances change (e.g. covid, Ukraine, Truss) it is entirely possible that you might propose something that seemed deliverable at the time but isn't following the change in circumstances. Proposals have to work in the present, not just in the past.

Fundamentally, I think we need to re-set the nature of the political discourse. In opposition I think it is perfectly reasonable, indeed eminently sensible to develop policy in an iterative manner that takes account of changing circumstances and for those policies only to be finally firmed up when they are presented to the public at a general election as part of a manifesto. But if an opposition attempts to do this the likes of you (and others) accuse them of u-turns, lying and all sorts of other things. It is nothing of the sort - it is sensible development of policy. Something only because significant if the public elect you on a particular platform and then in government you don't deliver - regardless of whether that non delivery is because of a deliberate u-turn or because policies were always unworkable.

But to avoid this we need to allow parties (particularly in opposition, it is more difficult when you are actually already in government) to develop and iterate policy in a grown up manner so that they end up with sensible and workable policies for when they write their manifesto. Of course whether those policies are sensible is a matter for political debate and for the electorate to decide, but no party, regardless of their political persuasion should be going into an election proposing stuff which is clearly unworkable, unaffordable etc.

[Nearly Sane]

But you seem to prefer that they didn't row back on them, which seems much, much worse.

And if circumstances change (e.g. covid, Ukraine, Truss) it is entirely possible that you might propose something that seemed deliverable at the time but isn't following the change in circumstances. Proposals have to work in the present, not just in the past.

Fundamentally, I think we need to re-set the nature of the political discourse. In opposition I think it is perfectly reasonable, indeed eminently sensible to develop policy in an iterative manner that takes account of changing circumstances and for those policies only to be finally firmed up when they are presented to the public at a general election as part of a manifesto. But if an opposition attempts to do this the likes of you (and others) accuse them of u-turns, lying and all sorts of other things. It is nothing of the sort - it is sensible development of policy. Something only because significant if the public elect you on a particular platform and then in government you don't deliver - regardless of whether that non delivery is because of a deliberate u-turn or because policies were always unworkable.

But to avoid this we need to allow parties (particularly in opposition, it is more difficult when you are actually already in government) to develop and iterate policy in a grown up manner so that they end up with sensible and workable policies for when they write their manifesto. Of course whether those policies are sensible is a matter for political debate and for the electorate to decide, but no party, regardless of their political persuasion should be going into an election proposing stuff which is clearly unworkable, unaffordable etc.

No, I prefer not making them in the first place.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I prefer not making them in the first place.

And what if circumstances change? Such as proposing something that requires considerable spending which seemed affordable at the time but then a new PM comes in, crashes the economy, and then gets kicked out a few weeks later.

What you are suggesting sounds great in theory, but in the real world you'd need to be able to predict the future.

[Nearly Sane]

And what if circumstances change? Such as proposing something that requires considerable spending which seemed affordable at the time but then a new PM comes in, crashes the economy, and then gets kicked out a few weeks later.

What you are suggesting sounds great in theory, but in the real world you'd need to be able to predict the future.

What circumstances changed?

[ProfessorDavey]

What circumstances changed?

I gather most of these proposals originally emerged during Starmer's leadership campaign, which ran from late Feb 2020. Hmm, can't think of anything that's changed since Feb 2020 NS - can you?

[Nearly Sane]

I gather most of these proposals originally emerged during Starmer's leadership campaign, which ran from late Feb 2020. Hmm, can't think of anything that's changed since Feb 2020 NS - can you?

Not that makes a difference to you thinking they are idiotic in the first place?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not that makes a difference to you thinking they are idiotic in the first place?

Who are idiotic in the first place?

[Nearly Sane]

Who are idiotic in the first place?

The Labour party who put it forward

[ProfessorDavey]

The Labour party who put it forward

Where did I describe the Labour party as idiotic - hmm, is this yet another misrepresentation of what I said.

What I actually said is that what we've had from both government and opposition is 'naive electioneering' - promising 'free stuff' without really considering how it would be paid for nor who would deliver it.

I'm pleased to see that the Labour party, at least, now seems to be recognising that there needs to be a more carefully thought through three-way discussion that leads to workable policies. And actually I'm not sure that Labour ever had a handing out 'free stuff' policy on this in the first place.

The government - well that's a different matter - their policy seems to offer parents loads more 'free' hours but expect providers to deliver that while losing £2+ per hour and with far more limited opportunity to recoup on additional hours. This will make the business models of many nurseries simply no longer viable. So parents will turn up at the door of their local nursery for their 'free stuff' only to find the nursery has gone out of business.

[Nearly Sane]

Where did I describe the Labour party as idiotic - hmm, is this yet another misrepresentation of what I said.

What I actually said is that what we've had from both government and opposition is 'naive electioneering' - promising 'free stuff' without really considering how it would be paid for nor who would deliver it.

I'm pleased to see that the Labour party, at least, now seems to be recognising that there needs to be a more carefully thought through three-way discussion that leads to workable policies. And actually I'm not sure that Labour ever had a handing out 'free stuff' policy on this in the first place.

The government - well that's a different matter - their policy seems to offer parents loads more 'free' hours but expect providers to deliver that while losing £2+ per hour and with far more limited opportunity to recoup on additional hours. This will make the business models of many nurseries simply no longer viable. So parents will turn up at the door of their local nursery for their 'free stuff' only to find the nursery has gone out of business.

So the Labour party puts forward an idea which you think is idiotic and somehow the Labour party isn't idiotic.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the Labour party puts forward an idea which you think is idiotic and somehow the Labour party isn't idiotic.

Where did I ever say they were idiotic - stop misrepresenting me. I never even used the word until you used it when you misrepresented me in reply 17.

Why don't you read what I actually said rather than using words that I never used to misrepresent me.

[jeremyp]

That's what the Tories always say, but means-testing benefits always affects the poor worst.

Don't be silly. Means testing means you assess the need for the service and give the benefit to the people who can't afford it. A flat benefit given to everybody makes it more expensive and the poor people probably won't get enough.

Realistically, some things should be means-tested, but we should always resist the extension of means testing. The rich don't need the NHS, but I'd resist like hell any attempt to abolish the principle of universal free-at-point-of-use healthcare.

Healthcare and education should IMO be free at the point of delivery. Education should be free because it is an investment in the future of the nation. An education population is more productive than an uneducated population. I would never want to see somebody effectively condemned to death because they can't afford a life saving treatment or even a treatment that would just make their quality of life better.

I can't think of a compelling reason to make under five child care free at the point of delivery except for poor families where both parents need to go out to work. Hence, a means tested solution is a reasonable choice here.

[Nearly Sane]

So the Labour party puts forward an idea which you think is idiotic and somehow the Labour party isn't idiotic.

So was the Labour Party ok to suggest it?