The U.K. Becomes A Nanny State….Literally

The United States may not have sunk this far down the rabbit hole of socialism, but the UK has. The UK has become a nanny state, literally in the case of one program.

Labour Party Loons Foist State-run Childcare on UK at 66k Pounds a Head

A childcare subsidy aimed at persuading mothers of young children to return to work has cost taxpayers an astonishing £66,000 for every woman who has taken a job, a study revealed yesterday.
It said the price of extra free nursery places for three-year-olds under the part-time pre-school places scheme will be £800 million this year.
But the scheme has resulted in only 12,000 women moving into work, and the majority of them are in part-time jobs working fewer than 30 hours a week.

So many questions come to mind when I see an article like this:

What – are women in this program just pawning off their kids on the state so they can sit around doing nothing?? If only 12,000 women have gone back to work, why are enough kids in the program that it should cost this much?

Do you suppose a full-time professional Au Pair in the UK costs that much?

Do you suppose it’s in the State’s best interest to replace parenthood responsibilities with Big Brother’s Permanent Day Care?

Do the moms going back to work even earn that much on average?

How do you suppose this cost figure was obtained? Are they paying state childcare “experts” a king’s ransom?

Do they gold-plate the state’s diaper supply?

But I’ll settle for one question to rule them all: What were they THINKING?

The great axiom of politics is this: if you want more of something, subsidize it. Evidently, the UK wants more single, working parents, more broken homes, more ‘parents’ who care more for their own social lives than their children, and more children for which it is responsible. How far are we from child-rearing factories and an end to the concept of ‘mother’ or ‘father’ as in “Brave New World’?

My head hurts – I need to lie down now.

  • Brad Warbiany

    The problem with this analysis is that it doesn’t in any way account for the marginal cost of any new child or new woman entering the workforce.

    It just cleanly divides £800M pounds by 12,000 mothers to get £66K.

    Your analysis doesn’t account for what is later in the article:

    The report, based on information collected by official surveys, said most of the mothers who took advantage of free nursery places for their three-year-olds would have been paying for their own childcare if the State had not stepped in.

    It found that for every six children whose free places were paid for by taxpayers, only one was a child who would not have been in pre-school education – whether or not they were subsidised by the State.

    ‘For the other five children, the policy effectively gave parents a discount on the early education they would have paid to use anyway,’ the report said. ‘Among the small number of women whose youngest child went to pre-school for the first time as a result of this policy, around one quarter moved into work.’

    So basically if you do the math, this program probably benefited 72,000 women. But only 1 of 6 were actually new entrants into the workforce. The remaining 60,000 were probably already in the workforce and started taking advantage of the subsidy. Thus it is probably better to say that an £800M program benefited 72,000 moms at a cost of £11K apiece. But most of those moms weren’t new entrants to the workforce, they were just new users of the subsidy.

  • SABRMatt

    Yes – this is a good point. I would argue, however, that even if you assume that the program helped 72,000 working moms at a cost of 11k pounds (roughly $19,000) per year…that is hilariously too high. You can cover working hours with in-home care for less than that, and you’d get something that was a better personal fit, and didn’t run the risks of Federal control of care.