Will the extended childcare scheme boost Tory fortunes?

This week marks the start of the rollout of the government’s much-vaunted expansion of childcare, costing some £4bn a year. According to the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, “by the end of our rollout, this will save working parents on average £6,900 a year, helping 60,000 more people back into work”.

The prime minister has been busily touring classrooms and telling news crews that it’s a “positive and exciting moment”. At the moment, for working parents of three- and four-year-olds, 30 hours of childcare funded by the government is already available, and the expansion of the cover is being rolled out in these phases:

To qualify for the new hours, the majority of parents must earn more than £8,670, but less than £100,000 per year.

Recognising that, despite the plan, not everything will be available immediately, Keegan says the government is “working all across the country to make sure we build the capacity to cope with the demand”. Many parents have faced problems, however, with actually getting their offspring into a facility in good time. Labour calls the rollout “a mess” and has pledged to review it. Childcare lobby group the Early Years Alliance warn that “simply promising ‘more free childcare’ is meaningless if you’re not willing to invest in the infrastructure needed to deliver it”.

We’ll see. In principle, the scheme appears well-funded and with admirable aims that should benefit all concerned. Some hard-pressed parents, both working and at home, will find their lives changed for the better as a result of the reforms.

However, many childcare providers say it is underfunded; that there are not enough staff to look after all the children properly; that the economics of the scheme don’t add up and would force them into closure; the waiting lists are long; and it in any case only applies to term-time care. Labour has produced a dossier about “childcare chaos” with testimony from parents and nurseries across England about a “childcare pledge without a plan” – high costs, extra fees, and 18-month waiting lists at some nurseries.

The chances are that there will be some improvements for some parents, but the pattern will be rather patchy. Those who find themselves faced with an unfeasibly long waiting list for a place are bound to blame the government, fairly or not.

Improbable. The best, most reliable way of converting a floating voter to your cause is by promising the earth and delivering it. The next best approach is to plead that there’s not the money to promise the earth, but some limited amelioration of a problem may be attempted. The worst of all worlds is to make a big fanfare and promise the earth – ie transformative childcare – and then deliver a bit of a jumble. That last possibility, is, arguably, what is about to befall the government. So whatever electoral dividend was about to be yielded is swamped by widespread disappointment and frustration. Another fine old Tory mess, in other words, and one that betokens historic levels of incompetence. But we shall see how it goes…

Well, there is that small matter of winning some extra votes, which is especially important when you’re in an election year and about 20 points behind in the polls, and facing oblivion. It may also be argued that the government is acting in the best interests of the next generation of Britons, who should be better educated and socially adjusted than otherwise when quality childcare is easily available. But the overriding factor is probably the need to expand the workforce and plug labour shortages, particularly in the post-Brexit world where free movement of labour from Europe has been abolished. Economic growth, so badly needed, is being held back by the shortage of workers, and freeing parents up to take jobs or increase their hours should boost GDP and the tax take, at least partially helping to reduce the next cost of funding the scheme. Ironically, a shortage of childcare assistants is adding to the difficulties in rolling out this ambitious scheme.

No. There are slightly conflicting noises emanating from the Labour front bench, but plainly they are not backing any radically more extensive and, in public spending terms, costly adjustments to the present plan. The shadow education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has consistently refused to say she will implement the plan as it is and will conduct a “review” if Labour comes to power. Phillipson has commissioned the former Ofsted inspector David Bell to lead a review on early education and childcare to guarantee as yet unspecified early years entitlements for parents. A slightly different message though comes from her shadow cabinet colleague Nick Thomas-Symonds, who declares: “The entitlement that parents have been promised, we will not reduce if we are privileged to form the next Labour government.”

Keegan argues that a Labour victory at the general election could put the offer “at risk”, as a result of the review.

Like the pensions triple lock, then, we have the unusual situation where the Conservative Party is, in principle, promising a more attractive welfare offering than the Labour Party is prepared to.