Comments on: Literally, the Nanny-State

By: Matt Munro

Matt Munro — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:27:18 +0000

“- that intervention by the state in the earliest parts of life can have a profound, positive impact on later life – is sound”.

Where is the empirical evidence for your assertion given that, for example, children attending state nurseries have behavioural problems, and children going through state eduction have worse outcomes than those who don’t. I would not trust the government to look after my cat., let alone my kids. Anyone who wants their kids influenced in any way by the state, is in my view insane.

If this is ever implemented it will be under resourced and pointless (the kinds of people who need “support” after giving birth already have an amy of social workers, housing officers, community nurses, probation officer at al in their lives every day)

By: sanbikinoraion

sanbikinoraion — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:31:52 +0000

… and employers’ NI contributions, pension contributions, bonuses if any…

I think that you’d be lucky to bring in the measure for less than half a billion quid. Sure, I can see how that half-billion quid would provide some advantages, but are we really sure that there isn’t a better way to spend that half-billion, even on early days care?

It seems that the measure is designed to do two things:
1. allow the mother to escape household chores at a stressful time.
2. provide information and support to the mother to get into a good pattern of bringing up her child.

(1) can be fixed for far less than a nurse’s salary – the father should be at home for those first two weeks anyway, so chores can be shared between both parents who are at home. Furthermore, cleaners cost far less than nurses.
(2) can surely be accomplished in less than 30 hours? I can’t imagine what a maternity nurse would be doing for six hours a day for five days! I would have thought that fewer hours spread over a longer time period would be more beneficial.

By: Margin4 Error

Margin4 Error — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:45:29 +0000

ad
it could turn out not to be a waste of money – I’m just wary of falling into the trap of imagining that every pleasant tory musing is the same as a policy.

By: ad

ad — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:12:08 +0000

Look on the bright side, Margin. At least this particular waste of money would be relatively cheap. Hundreds of millions, rather than billions.

So it might well happen.

After all, anyone who disapproves can be denounced for ignoring new mothers and babies.

By: davecole.org » blog » Blog Archive » Quite literally the nanny state

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:07:31 +0000

[...] This article was cross-posted at Liberal Conspiracy. [...]

By: davecole.org » blog » Blog Archive » You can blame Derek Conway for this post

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:07:00 +0000

[...] UPDATE 1506: Liberal Conspiracy have posted my article on the Nanny State. [...]

By: Margin4 Error

Margin4 Error — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:41:33 +0000

It is unusual to see such commendation for the Tories on here.

And the policy sounds nice, though there is no evidence yet that it has any valuable consequences for mother and baby, other than that it sounds nice.

But is this not just another very pleasant comment with no commitment and no policy attached?

The Tory policy groups were very good at saying “apple pie and motherhood are good” and people could easilly agree to them.

But I believe the only policy to move from that to formal policy is to cut taxes for the rich (inheritance tax).

so – while this sounds a bit hard hearted – I’ll believe it when I see it.