It will also represent the backdoor nationalisation of the childcare industry.

Posted by: Bishop Hill at June 13, 2005 05:16 PM

James, for the first time I beg to differ with you. Much as it causes me great pain to agree with Ruth Kelly, sooner or later Nulabour had to come up with a good idea.

Your first two objections of increased child estrangement, and poor under resourced care can be countered by noting that child estrangement is already pretty bad, latch key kids might do better staying at school, and whether the scheme is low quality and poorly funding remains to be seen. I'm not saying that I think you will be proved wrong on this second point, but citing incompetence and low funding as objections would damn everything Nulabour and the Tories have ever done, or are ever likely to do.

I go along with your other objections, but think the benefits could outweigh the costs.

Hopefully, this is the last time I will fall for a Nulabour promise, only time will tell if it comes to anything or is quietly forgotton like most of their initiatives.

Posted by: John East at June 13, 2005 06:40 PM

John East says that NuLabour "has come up with a good idea". I beg to differ.

Quite apart from some of the objections which James lists, the depressing point is that, once again, it is a centrally imposed solution. With these centrally imposed solutions you get a one-size-fits-all solution which everyone has to pay for, regardless of their needs. For many parents, an after-school childminder is a better solution, for others it would be a better idea to work shorter hours for less money to avoid the costs of after-school care, if they had any choice about paying (which they won't with a tax funded system).

But let's just assume for a moment that this NuLabour proposal is generally a good one. In that case, why did we have to wait so long for a solution and why did we have to wait for Ruth Kelly to decide? Many independent schools have offered this type of facility for years, so it's not a new idea and not an original one. You are crediting education ministers with much more intelligence that they exhibit - nearly all their 'bright' ideas are way behind what ordinary staff in ordinary independent schools managed to dream up, in response to customer demand, years ago. In the state system, schools aren't allowed to make their own decisions in accordance with customer priorities, they have to wait until a slow-witted (but thinks herself so very clever) education secretary comes up with an idea years after everyone else.

Posted by: HJHJ at June 14, 2005 08:45 AM

>but citing incompetence and low funding as objections would damn everything Nulabour and the Tories have ever done, or are ever likely to do.

True. And the objection is...?

The Tele has a good article on this today.

Posted by: Scott Campbell at Blithering Bunny at June 14, 2005 09:26 AM

It's centrally imposed, it won't be funded properly.

£680,000 sounds great, but it will be divided between 20k odd schools which is £ 34,000 for I believe three years funding, which is enough for one ordinary employee and nothing else.

It will be rubbish, because it will be run by Local Authorities. I don't think anyone's properly thought this one through, which isn't a first of course.

Posted by: Paul at June 14, 2005 03:45 PM

Another example of how the state appropriates the activities of some parents and forces them to pay for the shortfalls in others. My wife and I make sure that someone is always at home to take our children to school, and to pick them up. We sacrifice financially to do so. Our choice. Every parent should be free to make their own arrangements - providing they do not expect others to pay for it. State funding exerts a powerful influenceon behaviour. Hey presto, we get regression towards to mean.

Posted by: Ricky at June 20, 2005 06:30 PM