Left foot in mouth

I can't decide if Eoin Clarke is a socialist or a fucking idiot, the two terms being entirely interchangeable. But let's have a look at a particular example:

We in Labour Left argue that private companies in general have too big a share in the UK childcare market.

Do they? On what particular basis do you say this?

Fifty nine per cent of childcare providers are private profiteers.

Or, to put it another way, "59% of childcare providers, who parents willingly and voluntarily entrust their most precious bundles of joy with, are private profiteers."

What, exactly, is the problem?

We are going to make the case for co-operatives to play a larger part in the sector. In order to do this we wish to outline the poor value that private providers offer parents.

Right. Because people who have to pay the actual bills don't fucking shop around much, do they? They don't already balance off their individual requirements for cost versus quality versus trustworthiness and a zillion other factors when it comes to their kids? Because let's face it, it's only their fucking kids, what do they know?

In the current economic climate, can the average family afford an extra £910 a year just to send their child for 25 hours a week to a private crèche?

Er, Eoin, clearly they can, or they fucking wouldn't.

If the voluntary sector is able to provide it at a full £1,040 cheaper, then the state has a duty to boost that sector as much as in possible.

I am quoting verbatim from his post so far. I don't know about you, but I've got no fucking idea whatsoever where his numbers have come from. But let's assume they're justified somewhere, I'd like to point out that the voluntary sector, being voluntary, should be able to provide the childcare for free and gratis, it being, you know, voluntary. Unless, of course, Eoin has co-opted a well-known and clearly-understood word to mean something else, something that sounds jolly spiffy, but is actually a nasty, spiteful piece of socialist bollocks. Much like "co-operatives", something I see used with gay abandon, but entirely unexplained.

I'd also like to point out that the state has no fucking money of its own, sponging as it does off the long-suffering and increasingly-impoverished taxpayer. Many of whom either don't have kids or have made other plans for their own kids and can't really understand why they have to subsidise some other cunt's kids.

Given the fact that about 30% of crèche places are unfilled, the practice of charging parents deposits and registration fees to book their children into a care provider is deeply unethical.

Is it? On what grounds do you level this charge? People will either pay it and use the service, or they won't and fuck off elsewhere. I really don't see the word "ethics" entering into this at all.

And it is a fact that profit-making childcare providers are much more likely to engage in the practice. As well as expanding the voluntary sector, the government should also seek to ban registration fees for crèches.

Why? What fucking business is it of the government what pricing and payment arrangements are voluntarily entered into by private businesses and / or individuals?

Personally, I'd like to see the government ban registration fees for cars, but of course, dickheads like Eoin will never argue for that, because the money is going to their preferred thief, the government.

But these are not the only problems that parents face. The growing cost of childcare is also an issue. All of this data is based upon 2010 data but prices are climbing.

Yeah, well maybe it's got something to do with insane levels of regulation, mandatory staffing requirements and, of course, the taxes levied by the greedy state.

No, no, Eoin, you're quite right, it's all down to those greedy profiteers.

More that two thirds of providers have increased their prices in the last year, this comes at a time when the government are cutting by 10% the amount of childcare fees they will cover for low income families. That said, the families that receive state support with childcare only account for about 20% of the total number of children receiving these services. Eighty per cent of families have to struggle with these costs by themselves.

Life is cruel sometimes. But perhaps you'd be better off making a case for it to be easier for people to open up a small childcare business without the insane levels of box-ticking required by the government, and the eye-watering taxation levied on them.

Just imagine, thousands of potentially unemployed people not only earning money, but also reducing the costs for people already in work.

Or does that not fit in with your socialist, centrally-controlled, authoritarian mindset?

No, I did think so.