Literally, the Nanny-State


by Dave Cole    
February 5, 2008 at 11:08 am

For what it’s worth, I think that the new proposal from the Conservatives is actually rather good. It entails each newborn and their mother having the services of a maternity nurse for the first week after leaving hospital.

According to the Observer, it would cost ‘at least £150m a year’. I think a closer figure is £212m per year* (my workings are at the end of this post). Whether or not it survives, I think the Conservatives - and I mean this genuinely - are to be congratulated on putting forward an ambitious, policy proposal. I hope that full, detailed costings and implementations are brought forward.

The advantages, to my mind, are obvious. It may be that the money could be better spent elsewhere or could be targeted within this area or somesuch but the basic principle - that intervention by the state in the earliest parts of life can have a profound, positive impact on later life - is sound.

This applies to education and what might be called ‘good citizenship’ as well as health. What will be interesting is its effects on the parties. The traditionalist part of the Conservatives (’old Tory paternalists’) might like something that ’supports the family’ while the small government side will probably scream in pain. On the other side of the gangway, Labour’s front bench will oppose it on grounds of cost, being a gimmick and because you can’t concede anything while in government. I will be very interested to see what the CPAG say and how Labour reacts to it.

It is possible that the policy is a gimmick; if it is, it will be forgotten in short order, slightly damage the perception of politics and occasionally be brought out by Labour to hit the Conservatives. I hope not as the policy is, at least, worth discussing. Labour have nothing to lose by entering into a debate about it.

To do so is statesmanlike; if the idea is sound, it can be implemented in a bipartisan manner with input from both sides; if it is not, it can be used in argument against the Tories.

Does anyone know if the Lib Dems have said anything about it?

*[According to the National Statistical Office (FM1 no. 35 pp1, PDF), there were 669,601 live births in England and Wales in 2006. If each of those received six hours’ nursing care a day for, say, five days after leaving hospital, we would have a total number of working hours of 20,088,030 per year. If we assume that a maternity nurse (or full-time equivalent) works forty hours a week and have the statutory amount of holiday, each nurse would work for 1,888 hours per year. Assuming that there is currently no slack in the system (ie no nurses can be redeployed) and that there is no slack in the future system (ie it will be possible to provide perfect coverage with no illness, absence etc.), we would need to recruit 10,640 nurses. Outside London, the annual pay for a general nurse with three years’ experience is £19,935, giving a total gross salary bill of £212,108,400 per year. That’s before you add in administration, medicines, liability insurance, training, retraining, mileage and so on.]

—————-
This is a guest post. Dave blogs at DaveCole.org


Print it   |   Trackback   |   Comments feed   |   to del.icio.us   |   to Facebook
Filed under: Blog , Health

7 Comments   ||   Add your own

  • We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
  • We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
  • Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
  • Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.
  • Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy.
at 1:41 pm on February 5, 2008
- direct link -  
1.  comment by
     Margin4 Error

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.

at 3:07 pm on February 5, 2008
- direct link -  
2.  pingback by
     davecole.org » blog » Blog Archive » You can blame Derek Conway for this post

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

at 3:07 pm on February 5, 2008
- direct link -  
3.  pingback by
     davecole.org » blog » Blog Archive » Quite literally the nanny state

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

at 7:12 pm on February 5, 2008
- direct link -  
4.  comment by
     ad

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.

at 9:45 am on February 6, 2008
- direct link -  
5.  comment by
     Margin4 Error

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.

at 10:31 am on February 6, 2008
- direct link -  
6.  comment by
     sanbikinoraion

… 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.

at 11:27 am on February 6, 2008
- direct link -  
7.  comment by
     Matt Munro

“- 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)

Post a comment using the form below


 
· About the author: This is a guest post. Dave Cole blogs on davecole.org.

· Other articles by Dave Cole
Campaigns
Latest comments
» Jennie Rigg posted on Bloggers 6, Mainstream Media 1

» jailhouselawyer posted on Smears and False Flags (updated)

» Rob posted on Was there conflict of interest over gay marriage case?

» thomas posted on We should have open primaries for elections

» thomas posted on What does Cameron's "broken society" say about us?

» Nick posted on Waiters must get the tips we give them

» Lee Griffin posted on Ken Livingstone's 30 year itch

» Adam Bienkov posted on Ken Livingstone's 30 year itch

» Mike Killingworth posted on Ken Livingstone's 30 year itch

» leon posted on Ken Livingstone's 30 year itch

» Tim Ireland posted on Smears and False Flags (updated)

» Tory Dipper posted on Smears and False Flags (updated)

» Jonathan Rutherford posted on What does Cameron's "broken society" say about us?

» Sunny Hundal posted on Smears and False Flags (updated)

» Tory Dipper posted on Smears and False Flags (updated)