Childcare: Cameron to check out Swedish models?

A government commission on childcare is being set up to investigate possible ways to ease prices and increase places, as many working parents, yours truly included, have found themselves spending more on nannies or nurseries than they do on their mortgage.  When both partners share the bread-winning duties, associated childcare costs can typically top £5,000 per annum, even for part-time provision, and you can treble that in the capital, says the Childcare Trust in a recent report.

Lead by Children’s Minister Sarah Teather, the commission will look at the potential for making the school day longer, focusing on the issue of expanding “wrap-around care”. Ms Teather explains this to be both breakfast and after-school clubs, provided by schools on their own initiative, or “working with private sector providers or voluntary sector groups”. Additional aims of the commission include a general  examination of the effectiveness of government support, and any scope for cutting red tape that increases cost but not quality.

Alongside such cost-cutting measures considered, may come a loosening of related legislation. Currently, childcare providers working with the under -fives, need to maintain a ratio of one adult to three children. Conservative back-bencher Liz Truss has been arguing for an increase in that ratio to one for every five. Now, mercifully, my childcare commitments have so far been solely of an amateur nature. However, I find it alarming enough to return from an unscheduled nappy refurbishment to find the older sibling casually juggling cutlery, or dining on play-dough, let alone what toxic tasks another three of them might have undertaken. But I’m all for balancing the budget.  

By all means allow our child-minders another two charges, just first explain why that encourages them to cut costs down for the rest of us. Our bailed-out banks fail to pass on the bargain base-rates, and OPEC omits to increase oil production despite the punitive price of petrol. If there is a model for sharing the benefits of government intervention and easing market conditions, then it’s certainly not set in stone, or even plasticine.

Foremost in the great and mighty minds involved in the study, we are told, will be learning from some excellent examples of childcare amongst our European cousins. Now, the Swedes must have developed vertigo from the pedestal they’ve been put on, when it comes to state-sponsored pre-school provision, so I predict glowing overtures towards the Swedish system, which is to be rightly applauded. However, any attempt to duplicate the Scandinavian blueprint would be to run a Formula One team on a Sunday league budget. The Swedes pay higher taxes, they didn’t invade Iraq, they have 500 troops in Afghanistan to our 9500, and they don’t have nuclear weapons, let alone a plan to replace Trident. For some inane reason they have placed nurturing the next generation over foreign interventionism and cold-war paranoia, which leaves a lot more cash for crayons. The more fool them!

Diplomacy in the Dug-Outs of Euro 2012

With Euro 2012 beginning, the off-pitch political posturing now sees UK government ministers boycotting England’s group games in protest at “selective justice” and “the rule of law” in Ukraine, the increasingly controversial co-host of the tournament. The comments relate principally to the case of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, jailed for seven years for supposed abuse of office, a conviction the EU have condemned. Tymoshenko spent 20 days on hunger strike, and was tortured and beaten, according to her family. The 51 year old, who lost the disputed 2010 election, is one of several opposition politicians to have been arrested in a move that is widely considered to be politically motivated.

 Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is certain to have much more leg-room in his VIP box for the football than first thought. German Chancellor Angel Merkel made her intentions clear last month, stating that unless human rights improved in the country, she and her cabinet would stay away. The French followed suit, as did the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso. In fact, the British boycott is significantly less bold than that of many neighbours, and late in coming. The official statement also cites the “minister’s busy schedules” as a reason for non-attendance, hardly the rhetoric of political hard-ball. In addition, only the group games are mentioned. This may be in rueful recognition of previous doleful displays in major competitions however. The possible lack of an English presence after the pool matches may be more about performance than politics.

 A Foreign Office spokesman has been quoted as saying that potential ministerial attendance at the quarter final stage and beyond is being kept “under review”. No doubt. If Roy Hodgson’s men manage the unimaginable, and force their way into the final, it would present the Prime Minster with an awkward diplomatic dilemma. No politician would wish to pass up the potential of surfing some sport-induced patriotism, with all the photo opportunities that provides. Yet abandoning the principals which prevented your previous attendance means moral masochism, and an open goal for the opposition.

 Added to this political hot potato are the not-unfounded fears from travelling fans and footballers alike about racist abuse at the Euros, coupled with concerns over potential strong-arm tactics from the patrols of riot police being prepped for the occasion. Former Labour Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe feels the British government boycott could further fuel anti-English feeling amongst supporters at the tournament, whilst fans fear a backlash from Ukrainian and Polish police.

 All in all, the Prime Minister might be forgiven for privately hoping the three Lions limp home with wounded pride and empty paws. Against the backdrop of a back-firing budget, the post-match post-mortems might provide a welcome distraction. Even the Coalition can’t be called to account for a lack of midfield imagination and failure to capitalise on set-piece situations.  

You Are Who You stand behind.

Loyalty is a rare and precious commodity, like a flat stomach after forty, and just as hard to regain when it’s gone. Retailers have long since sussed the need for enticing our continuous commitment to them, with loyalty cards, Nectar points, and air miles. It’s a tricky task to even grab a cappuccino without being “incentivised” into patronising the same place when your caffeine level next crashes.

 But is this simply a one-sided relationship? Is repeat custom conditional on a complimentary coffee? One size does not necessarily fit all. Savings and service are certainly a selling point, but branding is about more than just not losing livestock. In amongst the desperate pre-Christmas discounts, during last year’s December gift gathering, I clocked one shop distinctly devoid of red-sticker reductions and seasonal under-selling.“Superdry” is apparently a fashion favourite of David Beckham, amongst others, and their distressed-look designs don’t seem to suffer the ignominy of discounts, because they don’t need to. Punters were parting with hard won wages willingly, buying into the brand without a bargain bin in the building.

 The lure of the label is intrinsically linked to identity. We are what we eat, but also what we sport and support. Car stickers constantly catalogue our allegiances to clubs and causes. Be it the National Trust, Nottingham Forest, or Say No to GMOs, some of us are so keen to state our support, we sing it out to those we’ve not even met yet, whether this may mitigate the chance of such a meeting or not.

 This week the Prime Minister reaffirmed his support for his Culture Secretary, despite Jeremy Hunt’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry indicating that his office had close and continued contact with News Corps during the bartering over the BskyB bid. Vince Cable was removed from his quasi-judicial role in the process, when unguarded comments revealed his personal bias, only to be replaced by Mr Hunt, whose pro-Murdoch position is a matter of public record. Yet Mr Cameron is satisfied the Culture Secretary “acted properly”. Why? Because he said he did. Oh, that’s okay then. I presume Mr Hunt submitted a note from his mum as evidence and was closely monitored to check he wasn’t crossing his fingers.

 Labour insists the Culture Secretary broke the ministerial code and misled parliament. By only sending him to Lord Leveson however, the Prime Minister perhaps felt that would not be discovered. No harm in standing behind someone if you’ve made certain they can’t fall over.

 However, the Telegraph reports the chairman of the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) warning that the initiation of an investigation into breaches of the ministerial code do not need a nod from the PM. Mr Cameron has used more robust rhetoric in defence of Mr Hunt, than he did for the now arrested Andy Coulson. But before you nail your colours to the mast, better check which way the wind is blowing, because the forecast still looks decidedly changeable.

Who Gains From The Games?

If you need a light, the Olympic torch is currently careering round the West Country, if you’d prefer one as a permanent fixture, you can pick up your own on Ebay. The torches are valued at £495, but carriers have the option to purchase for £295, and are free to flog on after use. But best be warned, the bidding is barmy. I could find little available for under four figures, rising to around £145,000 for the bronzed brazier whose current owner is donating 75% of the cash to the charity Whizz Kidz. My advice would be the replica torch as a cupcake decoration for £1.09 plus postage.

All the pomp, and edible.

 That torch bearers have chosen to sell-on their illustrious cargo has angered some, which seems a trifle harsh. They will, after all, be some of the very few to make any money at all from the upcoming Games, so good luck to them.  

 Ok, it would be churlish to assume that an international festival of sport will not attract commercial opportunities and resulting income. However, the outlay is principally from the public purse, which is not where the profits will end up.  Indeed, opportunities have already been missed to generate some home grown earnings. 84% of all the souvenirs sold on the London 2012 website were not manufactured in the UK. Even the eleven million tickets for the Olympics and Paralympics, will not have been printed here. The multi-million pound contract went to an American firm based in Arkansas, and the tickets are being shipped 4,500 miles instead.

 To be fair, the contracts have been awarded to the most competitive bidders, but as the Games is essentially not a commercial entity, why does the bottom line have to be top of the agenda? Money sent abroad will be spent abroad, whereas, home grown contracts, even at a slightly higher price, would mean British wages feeding back into the system. It’s the kind of thing politicians would say, but finance finds famous friends. I did not “back the bid”, but surely if the country is footing the bill, it should benefit economically where possible.

 It’s hard to find exact figures for how much London 2012 is actually costing, but £11 billion seems a pretty reliable working estimate. For figure fans, that’s £11,000,000,000. Now, don’t get me wrong, that would only be an extravagant and senseless waste of resources if, for example, we were labouring under, let’s say, the deepest economic downturn in living memory. Oh, wait a minute…

Greece On A Slippery Slope

Angela Merkel has confirmed her commitment to the continued participation of Greece in the Euro project, but the German chancellor is starting to sound like a landlady whose lodger is behind with the rent, barely employable, and probably pinching her toothpaste. After nine days of trying to form a unity government, the only thing Greek politicians have agreed on, is that they don’t. Into this market-maddening maelstrom flies the newly inaugurated French President, and promptly gets struck by lightning.

 In Francois Hollande’s premier press conference with Mrs Merkel, the early exchanges were more abrupt than embracing. The Chancellor kicked off with the usual non-committal platitudes, concentrating on common ground not contrast. But Monsieur Hollande, maybe with an eye more to the domestic than the diplomatic, was keen to confirm that every option must be “on the table”. His hostess, one sensed, would have preferred that some subjects were brushed politely under it. With a second election looming in Greece, the French President was keen to reach out to its austerity-weary countrymen. “The Greeks need to know we’ll come with growth measures”, he said. The Chancellor, who might prefer that they just shut up and pay up, countered with: “The question is what one means by growth.” Not a full-blooded contradiction perhaps, but a pretty close cousin. If it had been a first date, there might not be a second, but these two don’t have the luxury of simply slating each other to mutual friends and avoiding each other at parties.

 When the Greek electorate go box-ticking again, on June 17th, the anti-austerity parties promise to prosper further. The result may be a battle of brinkmanship. Athens will attempt to alter the agreed austerity arrangements, aware that they may have over-stayed their welcome at a party they gate-crashed under false pretences, but the hosts don’t yet want them to leave. Whether the first socialist President of the Republic in almost two decades can convene sufficient policy compromise to encourage growth remains to be seen. Whether enough economic growth is even practically possible to service debt and still support public services is even less likely. Economists are now tottering towards the once taboo subject of a Greek exit from the single currency. Greece, in the Euro, is increasingly a sinking ship, with a choice between either accepting the bail-out, cuts included, or literally bailing-out.  

French Drive To The Left.

He’s balding, wears glasses, and lacks a supermodel partner, so far, but Francois Hollande has two things that Nicolas Sarkozy might covet, the keys to the Elysee Palace, and a couple more inches in height. The former Mayor of Tulle underwent a mini make-over before his successful presidential campaign, finding a decent tailor, some designer glasses, and shedding some weight. And Hollande’s more streamlined physique could well be useful when walking the tightrope he has now embarked on.

His victory is a lurch to the left, and a protest vote against austerity, the unwanted offspring of the financial crisis, that France reluctantly adopted as an antidote to the debt and deficit. Hollande however, favours the borrow-and-build approach, believing government infrastructure projects will provide work for an unemployed population numbering around 10%. As the freed-up finances filter through the system, it is hoped that workers will start to spend, and so save the state. A simple sell to the waiting workforce perhaps, but Germany’s Chancellor Merkel will not want to rework the hard fought Fiscal Compact, to accommodate these new Gallic grievances. However, is it fair to say that Monsieur Hollande’s demands in that direction weakened palpably as his soaring popularity made presidential success more probable.

The next scheduled meeting of EU leaders is on the 23^rd May, and the President-Elect’s pro-growth agenda may not be without its advocates. After all, Nicolas Sarkozy is the eleventh EU leader to lose his job since 2008, when Lehman Brothers went bang, and the rest of us started whimpering. Austerity is a bitter pill to swallow. If the symptoms we suffer are severe enough we may nod sagely and agree to the prescription, but ultimately when we don’t like the medicine we are likely to request a second opinion.

Back home, even Ed Miliband could not stop folk leaning back to Labour in the local council elections. Maybe if your Plan A is austerity, you had better have a back-up, as being right, in either sense, will be of little consolation when you’re back in opposition. On the other hand, while some are indeed turning to the left, there is no consistent political colour amongst the current victims of the austerity backlash. It may be less about political hue, and more about human nature. We will all acknowledge that we’ve over-spent, and the belt needs to be tightened, but when there’s no bourbon creams left in the tin, perhaps even the best intentioned will just vote for anyone who promises biscuits.    

Performance Related Apple For The Teacher?

That the Education Select Committee’s proposals regarding performance related pay for teachers have been described by the National Union of Teachers as “total nonsense” is not entirely surprising. That they were suggested in the first place sadly isn’t either.   

 
MPs should be aware of the common complaint from business leaders that the annual crop of graduates they are gifted, have grades where their brains should be. And the current tendency to teach to the test, where it exists, at the expense of a thorough grounding in any given subject, could hardly be improved by a system that links a pupil’s exam results, to whether their teacher’s next holiday will be Margate or Mauritius.

The discussed direction is allegedly aimed, on the one hand, at encouraging quality graduates into teaching. If so, it is a depressing deduction to conclude that the only inducement that exists is financial. If you want a sales bonus, sell stuff. What of job satisfaction? What of the vocational calling to impart wisdom and knowledge to the next generation for the general betterment and benefit of the population? Ok, I’m overstepping the marker pen, but if those entering education, or healthcare for that matter, do so under markedly different motivations than the graduates gliding into investment banking, then why plug the same pay structure? And if they don’t, why do we want them to?

 I applaud the idea of rewarding teachers that are “adding the greatest value” to the education of their pupils. However, when your eyes glaze over and you reminisce fondly on forgotten school days, you tend to feel most thankful to the characters that entertained and inspired, not raised your predicted grade average by 22%. They may be the same person, they equally might not.

 A stated aim of the new policy would also be to discourage under performing teachers from continuing in the profession, by preventing them from benefitting from the same advancement as their more successful counterparts. Under ancient practices, staff would automatically progress up the pay-scale, but this process was doctored under the last government towards a points based system which is already performance determined.

 Having your tonsils out does not make you a healthcare expert, and though most of us have been to school, few would think we could run one, let alone all of them. The government is right to seek to safeguard and improve the quality of public services, but there are lessons from the Health and Social Care Bill that have clearly not been learnt. Rewarding a decent nurse or teacher with fair pay, and the freedom to do their job without the threat of constant upheaval from the rolling whims of successive governments should not feel like radical thinking, but it’s starting to.