This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/09/editorial-coalition-childcare-toddler-tantrum
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The coalition's toddler tantrums | The coalition's toddler tantrums |
| (about 14 hours later) | |
| The coalition's legislative programme increasingly looks like the work of squabbling toddlers. After the Conservatives nabbed the Lib Dems' Lords reform lollipop last year, the Lib Dems are refusing to hand the Tories the referendum rattle they covet. After a Queen's speech more notable for things one side or the other had snatched away than for anything positive, the metaphorical temper tantrums yesterday centred on real-life toddlers. Nick Clegg disavowed government plans for nurseries to enrol six two-year-olds for each adult. Meanwhile, No 10 lost no time in dismissing the comments of the PM's deputy on his LBC phone-in as shock-jock antics. | |
| Mr Clegg always planned to differentiate himself from the Conservatives in the second half of this parliament, but the man who once wrote that David Cameron's "big society" was just another name for the liberal society surely never envisaged things reaching this pass. There was no equivocation in the plans that Thatcherite junior minister, Liz Truss, published in January on the question of children-per-carer ratios: "we will", the government paper said, "free high-quality providers to offer more places", specifying particular increases in the number of children of each age that nurseries and childminders could take. The deputy PM is thus not merely fighting his intra-government battles in public, something Lib Dems such as Vince Cable have long done, he is actually unpicking agreed policy – and on the politically sensitive morning after the Queen's speech. The destablising dynamics for the coalition are not hard to fathom. The grumbling of an increasingly tribal Tory party were almost audible yesterday. The first question: if he gets away with this, what will he try and block next? The second: which pet Liberal Democrat project can we kill off in revenge? | Mr Clegg always planned to differentiate himself from the Conservatives in the second half of this parliament, but the man who once wrote that David Cameron's "big society" was just another name for the liberal society surely never envisaged things reaching this pass. There was no equivocation in the plans that Thatcherite junior minister, Liz Truss, published in January on the question of children-per-carer ratios: "we will", the government paper said, "free high-quality providers to offer more places", specifying particular increases in the number of children of each age that nurseries and childminders could take. The deputy PM is thus not merely fighting his intra-government battles in public, something Lib Dems such as Vince Cable have long done, he is actually unpicking agreed policy – and on the politically sensitive morning after the Queen's speech. The destablising dynamics for the coalition are not hard to fathom. The grumbling of an increasingly tribal Tory party were almost audible yesterday. The first question: if he gets away with this, what will he try and block next? The second: which pet Liberal Democrat project can we kill off in revenge? |
| Conceivably, one of the lines No 10 penned for Her Majesty had enraged Mr Clegg, and persuaded him to engage in such a risky manoeuvre. He was certainly disappointed that the international aid target will not be written into law, and some say he may also have been rattled by a line from the throne about "matching internet protocol addresses", jargon which some online privacy campaigners fear could cover the revival of the "snoopers charter", which Mr Clegg believed he had killed off. More likely, however, the deputy prime minister was simply emboldened by the failings of a proposal that gets the thumbs down from experts, professionals and parents alike, and which abjectly fails the common sense test. | Conceivably, one of the lines No 10 penned for Her Majesty had enraged Mr Clegg, and persuaded him to engage in such a risky manoeuvre. He was certainly disappointed that the international aid target will not be written into law, and some say he may also have been rattled by a line from the throne about "matching internet protocol addresses", jargon which some online privacy campaigners fear could cover the revival of the "snoopers charter", which Mr Clegg believed he had killed off. More likely, however, the deputy prime minister was simply emboldened by the failings of a proposal that gets the thumbs down from experts, professionals and parents alike, and which abjectly fails the common sense test. |
| Mr Clegg will have hit home with any parent who heard him when he neatly dispatched the idea that childcare could be improved while raising the two-year-old quotient from four to six, by drily observing that looking after four toddlers at once "was already quite a lot". Ms Truss had a point in principle when she claimed that better-qualified staff ought to be able to supervise more older children, but in practice the better-qualified staff do not yet exist. As for infants, Cathy Nutbrown's expert review – commissioned by the government itself – was emphatic: "I do not think there is any case for changing the ratio for babies and two-year-olds." | Mr Clegg will have hit home with any parent who heard him when he neatly dispatched the idea that childcare could be improved while raising the two-year-old quotient from four to six, by drily observing that looking after four toddlers at once "was already quite a lot". Ms Truss had a point in principle when she claimed that better-qualified staff ought to be able to supervise more older children, but in practice the better-qualified staff do not yet exist. As for infants, Cathy Nutbrown's expert review – commissioned by the government itself – was emphatic: "I do not think there is any case for changing the ratio for babies and two-year-olds." |
| With nurseries in no rush to jam-pack toddlers, the Conservative plan would have little chance of materially reducing cost, and where it succeeded would only do so by impeding chances for early learning at the bottom of the market. It is not the only aspect of childcare policy requiring a rethink. There is also a mismatch between the new £1,200 vouchers for each child that will be doled out to families on up to £300,000, and more restrictive help to the poor through universal credit, which covers two children at the most. It is the sort of mismatch that the Lib Dems must challenge if their social mobility talk is to convince. And childcare is only the first of many social issues on which the Tories need taking to task. There are risks for the coalition in getting assertive – but they are risks that have to be run if the Lib Dems are to prove that they are not merely in office, but also in power. | With nurseries in no rush to jam-pack toddlers, the Conservative plan would have little chance of materially reducing cost, and where it succeeded would only do so by impeding chances for early learning at the bottom of the market. It is not the only aspect of childcare policy requiring a rethink. There is also a mismatch between the new £1,200 vouchers for each child that will be doled out to families on up to £300,000, and more restrictive help to the poor through universal credit, which covers two children at the most. It is the sort of mismatch that the Lib Dems must challenge if their social mobility talk is to convince. And childcare is only the first of many social issues on which the Tories need taking to task. There are risks for the coalition in getting assertive – but they are risks that have to be run if the Lib Dems are to prove that they are not merely in office, but also in power. |