Back when I was a youngster, just after WW2, we had Family Allowances under the Family Allowances Act of 1945. Of course, then it was the norm that married mothers did not go out to work but stayed at home as a single income was sufficient to maintain a standard of living, which was not as luxurious as today (we were the first family in our street to have a TV, in 1951). So getting to there from here will be difficult.
Incidentally, while Darwin gets the credit for the theory of evolution through 'The Origin of Species', strictly it should be called the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution because Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the same idea as Charles Darwin at the same time. While it was the Galapagos finches for Darwin, it was collecting birds in Indonesia that brought the same realisation to Wallace. A good question to ask any Dawkins acolyte is OK, evolution can explain the origin of species, but how did living cells arise from non-living chemical elements? Darwin's "warm little pond" from a century and a half ago is still about as good a guess as we can make.
This is a great article, but deeply depressing for 3 reasons:
1) it's another example of someone who was part of, or working for, the last government who apparently knows what needs to be done, but was working to move us in the wrong direction
2) We now have a government whose instincts will be in the wrong direction, so if anything improves it will be by accident
3) If anyone tried to improve the system (or housing, or anything else) they will be shouted down by vast numbers of people, some well intentioned but foolish, some vested interests, some who just like calling reality fascist. Sadly we get the governments we deserve.
I'd push back against the idea that I was 'working to move us in the wrong direction' in Government. While there I did make the case for reforms to reduce the regulations, and we even got a few reforms, though far fewer than I (or, it sounds, you) would like.
Agree that your other points are deeply depressing though.
Sorry, it was more a general point about the last government rather than an intended slight on you personally. The direction of travel across almost everything was either continuing to regulate ourselves into poverty, or to do nothing. Overall (including I think in pre-school/childcare), the government was moving us in the wrong direction, partially actively and partially passively.
The blind watchmaker and the invisible hand of the market are both very elegant and clever theories with a lot of explanatory power, and I'm amazed that I don't remember having seen them compared before!
(although I'd add the caveat that God is stipulated to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, unlike Soviet central planners)
I very much agree that we should cut childcare regulations and ratios, and keep them as optional standards that providers can opt into to differentiate themselves.
I'm not sure about a £5k-per-child child benefit, though. Most of the post has been about the power of the free market, and then that's suddenly a hugely market-distorting intervention.
Many parents would not use it on the children (either through good intentions but poor money management, or through outright selfishness).
It's high enough that it would incentivise a lot of people to have children they don't want and/or wouldn't be able to look after (or do you think the fertility crisis is bad enough that this is a worthwhile tradeoff?)
And I think it could distort the job market: there might be poorly-paid jobs that a single childless person couldn't afford to take, so the job would normally have to either pay more or not exist, but then a parent of 4 kids with a stay-at-home spouse would be able to take that job because they're getting an extra £20k, which is then effectively subsidising the underpaying employer.
So I think it would be better to cut regulation but either keep the payment model for childcare how it is (directly subsidised by the government), or move it closer to that of schools (free at point of use). And, if the former, also get rid of price-setting, so providers are free to charge what they want and the government provides a voucher that keeps pace with maybe some low-ish percentile of prices, and parents are free to use only that or top it up themselves.
On 'market-distorting' I think you're straight-forwardly incorrect there - or at least, it is much less market-distorting than spending the same amount subsidising childcare. I'm not saying the examples you describe couldn't happen, but 'giving people money that they can spend how they want' is, I think almost by definition, less market-distorting than 'using that money to subsidise one specific industry in a very specific way'.
As to 'huge', when one's suggesting spending money differently, I think it can be helpful to isolate 'spending the money differently' rather than also adjusting the quantum at the same time, to focus on the change. That's what I did here. Is it 'huge'? I'm willing to concede it is pretty huge! But it's interesting that you're not the only person to balk at giving people £5k a year as too huge, but don't get the same reaction at spending in some cases quite a bit more than that per child (and same amount in total) on paying for their childcare.
I'm not wedded to the current total quantum; I'm not sure I have a strong sense of how much we should be supporting parents per child and could be persuaded it's less or more. But for me, whatever the quantum, the priority would be giving it to families to use as they thought best; that could absolutely be for childcare, I have minimal interest in subsidising childcare per se as opposed to other uses.
Thank you - both fixed.
Back when I was a youngster, just after WW2, we had Family Allowances under the Family Allowances Act of 1945. Of course, then it was the norm that married mothers did not go out to work but stayed at home as a single income was sufficient to maintain a standard of living, which was not as luxurious as today (we were the first family in our street to have a TV, in 1951). So getting to there from here will be difficult.
Incidentally, while Darwin gets the credit for the theory of evolution through 'The Origin of Species', strictly it should be called the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution because Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the same idea as Charles Darwin at the same time. While it was the Galapagos finches for Darwin, it was collecting birds in Indonesia that brought the same realisation to Wallace. A good question to ask any Dawkins acolyte is OK, evolution can explain the origin of species, but how did living cells arise from non-living chemical elements? Darwin's "warm little pond" from a century and a half ago is still about as good a guess as we can make.
Very good point re Wallace! And very interesting to hear of what it was like in your childhood - thank you for sharing.
This is a great article, but deeply depressing for 3 reasons:
1) it's another example of someone who was part of, or working for, the last government who apparently knows what needs to be done, but was working to move us in the wrong direction
2) We now have a government whose instincts will be in the wrong direction, so if anything improves it will be by accident
3) If anyone tried to improve the system (or housing, or anything else) they will be shouted down by vast numbers of people, some well intentioned but foolish, some vested interests, some who just like calling reality fascist. Sadly we get the governments we deserve.
I'd push back against the idea that I was 'working to move us in the wrong direction' in Government. While there I did make the case for reforms to reduce the regulations, and we even got a few reforms, though far fewer than I (or, it sounds, you) would like.
Agree that your other points are deeply depressing though.
Sorry, it was more a general point about the last government rather than an intended slight on you personally. The direction of travel across almost everything was either continuing to regulate ourselves into poverty, or to do nothing. Overall (including I think in pre-school/childcare), the government was moving us in the wrong direction, partially actively and partially passively.
Yes, very sadly true.
The blind watchmaker and the invisible hand of the market are both very elegant and clever theories with a lot of explanatory power, and I'm amazed that I don't remember having seen them compared before!
(although I'd add the caveat that God is stipulated to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, unlike Soviet central planners)
I very much agree that we should cut childcare regulations and ratios, and keep them as optional standards that providers can opt into to differentiate themselves.
I'm not sure about a £5k-per-child child benefit, though. Most of the post has been about the power of the free market, and then that's suddenly a hugely market-distorting intervention.
Many parents would not use it on the children (either through good intentions but poor money management, or through outright selfishness).
It's high enough that it would incentivise a lot of people to have children they don't want and/or wouldn't be able to look after (or do you think the fertility crisis is bad enough that this is a worthwhile tradeoff?)
And I think it could distort the job market: there might be poorly-paid jobs that a single childless person couldn't afford to take, so the job would normally have to either pay more or not exist, but then a parent of 4 kids with a stay-at-home spouse would be able to take that job because they're getting an extra £20k, which is then effectively subsidising the underpaying employer.
So I think it would be better to cut regulation but either keep the payment model for childcare how it is (directly subsidised by the government), or move it closer to that of schools (free at point of use). And, if the former, also get rid of price-setting, so providers are free to charge what they want and the government provides a voucher that keeps pace with maybe some low-ish percentile of prices, and parents are free to use only that or top it up themselves.
On 'market-distorting' I think you're straight-forwardly incorrect there - or at least, it is much less market-distorting than spending the same amount subsidising childcare. I'm not saying the examples you describe couldn't happen, but 'giving people money that they can spend how they want' is, I think almost by definition, less market-distorting than 'using that money to subsidise one specific industry in a very specific way'.
As to 'huge', when one's suggesting spending money differently, I think it can be helpful to isolate 'spending the money differently' rather than also adjusting the quantum at the same time, to focus on the change. That's what I did here. Is it 'huge'? I'm willing to concede it is pretty huge! But it's interesting that you're not the only person to balk at giving people £5k a year as too huge, but don't get the same reaction at spending in some cases quite a bit more than that per child (and same amount in total) on paying for their childcare.
I'm not wedded to the current total quantum; I'm not sure I have a strong sense of how much we should be supporting parents per child and could be persuaded it's less or more. But for me, whatever the quantum, the priority would be giving it to families to use as they thought best; that could absolutely be for childcare, I have minimal interest in subsidising childcare per se as opposed to other uses.