Thursday, 29 September 2011

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.

13 comments:

Jon Pearson said...

My wife is a private childcare provider. Does that market her a "profiteer"? We kind of depend on her modest profits to help feed and clothe our children...

Fidel Cuntstruck said...

They're really struggling to let go of the "Big State" philosophy aren't they? Personally I see this proposal as nothing more than a propaganda machine - catch 'em while they're young and all that.

But then, with an idiot like Milliband minor at the helm, what the fuck do you expect?

manwiddicombe said...

Anyone remember the WPCs who contravened the Childcare Act?

Anonymous said...

Please tell me you've misquoted the man:

£910 a year to send a child to childcare for 25 hours a week?

Thats roughly 3 days per week right... So 150 days per year...

Yup - apparently childcare is £6 per day... Does he have children?

I think he's either making it up or its £910 per month (which is a significant error of 1200% I think!) (4.5 weeks * 3 days per week = 13.5 days per month(ish) = £67 per day)

Do we want these people in charge of the publics money?

Tuesday Kid said...

I totally agree with you obnoxio. Too many fun and profitable jobs are being shifted over to the voluntary sector. Are people just expected to rot away in call centers to pay the bills?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Clown

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.

“If” – big ‘if’.

“ ... is able to provide it at a full £1,040 cheaper” Is it so able?

“ ... then the state has a duty ... “ Does it?

“ ... to boost that sector as much as in possible.” Can it ‘boost’ anything? And what about all the other ‘sectors’ it would be ‘duty bound’ to ‘boost’?

Look on the bright side through red tinted spectacles: it could ‘boost’ the voluntary sector and thereby save the hardworking family £1,040 per child per year and all for a measly £2,319 per child per year of government money. Job done; next project ...

Socialism is slavery.

DP

Anonymous said...

Why do socialists put so much effort into messing around with other people's kids? Are they all latent paedophiles, or is it just most of them?

Anonymous said...

wonderfully inaccurate lefty whining, many nurseries struggle to pay staff above minimum wage already plus there's great variation in costs nationwide. NEF funding adds further to that with some places not bothering due to the extra requirements of it all.

And the first area to look at occupation rates wise should be sure start neighbourhood nurseries which if my local ones are any indicator are less than 50% full and run at a healthy loss.

Anonymous said...

wonderfully inaccurate lefty whining, many nurseries struggle to pay staff above minimum wage already plus there's great variation in costs nationwide. NEF funding adds further to that with some places not bothering due to the extra requirements of it all.

And the first area to look at occupation rates wise should be sure start neighbourhood nurseries which if my local ones are any indicator are less than 50% full and run at a healthy loss.

Jill said...

Well, I don't know anything about your guy, but you're already paying for gazillions of people's childcare through tax credits (was 80%, now 70% and to particular maximums per child per week). Childcare rates have increased exponentially over the last few years and in direct correlation with the amounts tax credits will pay out. So it's not a market rate, what these people are charging. And we're not talking about poshies who can afford poshie nurseries or nannies, or whatevers. Still Labour's fault, just a different fault.

Joseph Takagi said...

Much like "co-operatives", something I see used with gay abandon, but entirely unexplained.

Well, co-operatives means organisations where the staff or customers get a profit in the business. John Lewis, the co-op, those hippies near me with their wholefoods shop, Tower Colliery.

And co-operatives are just fine. The hippies don't make a fortune by hiring staff and profiting from them, but they also aren't asking for a handout.

Here's the problem: like "charity" and "liberal", socialists will twist "co-operative". They won't be co-operatives, they'll be quangos, centrally run, and massively subsidised to eventually drive the free market providers out of business.

TheFatBigot said...

I'm old enough to remember when parents looked after their children. It seemed to work reasonably well.

Anonymous said...

" 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?

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."
First time commenter here, but is this joker saying that, the government can perform the service for 1040 cheaper than 910? Doesn't that mean that somewhere there is an extra 130 due back to me if I use the government service? At least if he is going to pull numbers outta his ass when writing this, could the author make the math work?