By Lisa Nandy MP (Labour, Wigan)

Last year the Financial Times reported that advisers at the Department for Education were conducting official DfE business through private email accounts to avoid the freedom of information act.

In response to a number of complaints, the Information Commissioner visited the department and after concluding that it wasn’t clear that the act had been properly understood or followed by staff, issued guidance.

At yesterday’s education questions, Kevin Brennan asked Michael Gove to confirm that he and his advisors had never deleted emails, from private addresses or otherwise, to avoid scrutiny. Visibly rattled, Gove refused to answer the question and simply asserted that he and his department had operated in accordance with Cabinet Office policy.

A letter I received from the information commissioner today may explain why.

The letter says:

“In addition to the guidance and good practice report published before Christmas, I can confirm that my office also has a number of active investigations in to these issues.

“I plan to conclude a number of complaints under Section 50 of the FOI act over the next few months – these will cover whether specific information requested is held for purposes of the act. I am also still considering allegations about whether individuals at the department breached section 77 of the act.”

Since taking office Gove has proven evasive on a succession of key questions.

He refuses to reveal the cost of his free schools programme.

He wouldn’t answer my parliamentary questions about the grant he awarded, without tender, to the New Schools Network until he was ordered to by the House of Commons’ procedure committee.

He had to be ordered to answer a freedom of information request about the same subject by the Information Commissioner.

He refuses to release details of consultation by academies, and won’t publish the minutes of discussions at the DfE board (the department releases only basic headings).

It makes you wonder what it is that Gove has to hide. Perhaps when the Information Commissioner concludes his complaints, we might discover the answer.

See also:

• Michael Gove calls for £60m distraction – Alex Hern, January 16th 2012

• The best preventative medicine in the world can’t undo the damage of Osborne’s austerity – Dr Tristan Learoyd, November 2nd 2011

• Clinton: UK’s austerity budget could mean deficit will increase – Will Straw, July 7th 2011

• Monarchy “perpetuates inequality” says Plaid AM – Ed Jacobs, June 8th 2011

• Weak EU growth reveals the price of austerity – Ben Fox, February 15th 2011

The Guardian has got hold of a leaked email in which Michael Gove suggests buying the Queen a yacht to celebrate her golden jubilee.

The paper reports:

Gove at one point comes close to suggesting that Britain’s dire economic climate means that a large-scale celebration is required to lift the country’s spirits.

The education secretary writes: “In spite, and perhaps because of the austere times, the celebration should go beyond those of previous jubilees and mark the greater achievement that the diamond anniversary represents.”

The Liberal Democrats privately expressed surprise at the proposal, which is likely to cost at least £60 million, at a time of national austerity.

The £60 million figure comes from estimations made when HMS Britannia was decommissioned in 1997. Given the existence of inflation, it seems likely that the true cost would be vastly higher.

When considering giving the 27th richest woman in the world a free yacht, it might be worth looking at the value of that yacht in broader terms.

Considering the suggestion comes from Gove, he would probably know that that money would pay for his cash-strapped department to build two new schools, fund seven for a year, or pay the salary of 1,200 teachers for a year.

Looking at other topical funding crises, it would pay for 9230 people to receive the highest rates of DLA for a year, 38,461 pupils to receive the highest rate of EMA for a year, and three-quarters of the government’s cancelled loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.

It would also ‘pay’ for just under a quarter of the ‘cost’ of AV.

Downing Street have responded to the claim that the money may come from public funds by saying:

“I don’t think anyone is suggesting that.”

Call us conspiracists if you will, but a mysterious email containing a wild plan guaranteed to stoke outrage is leaked just in time for the Monday morning press storm, and then the government backtracks on it almost immediately. Today might be a good day to keep an eye out for buried bad news.

See also:

• The best preventative medicine in the world can’t undo the damage of Osborne’s austerity – Dr Tristan Learoyd, November 2nd 2011

• Clinton: UK’s austerity budget could mean deficit will increase – Will Straw, July 7th 2011

• Monarchy “perpetuates inequality” says Plaid AM – Ed Jacobs, June 8th 2011

• Weak EU growth reveals the price of austerity – Ben Fox, February 15th 2011

• The new austerity of the Big Society – Anna Coote, November 8th 2010

Official figures published today reveal almost one in five 16-24-year-olds (1,163,000) are not in education, employment or training – an increase of 137,000 on this time last year; the number of young people not working or learning is now at record levels and there is little to suggest the situation will improve, says Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the University and College Union (UCU)

Labelling this government as out of touch with ordinary people and driving through ideological rather than necessary cuts is a popular past-time, but a quick analysis of what is happening to our young people makes for quite difficult reading.

With the job market getting tougher by the day for young people access to education and careers advice has never been more important.

However, the government has trebled tuition fees, axed vital financial student support (in the form of the education maintenance allowance – EMA) and got rid of the future jobs fund. There are not even spurious economic arguments the government can use to defend this approach.

The hike in tuition fees will cost the treasury in the short-term as it funds increased student loans and the removal of the EMA will leave government with a benefits bill that exceeds the cost of the EMA as young people cannot afford to stay in college.

One in five young people is now classified as not working or learning and that has huge implications for their future and the economy. A study (pdf) released last year estimated the lifetime cost to the economy of 16-18 year-olds not in education, employment or training in just one year could be as much as £77 billion.

Today’s figures are a worrying reminder that we need to do more to help young people get on – not price them out of education and consign them to the dole queue. Public spending on education in the UK is falling at the fastest rate since the 1950s and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned the government’s austerity programme will cut the living standards of Britain’s families by more than 10% over the next three years.

Most worryingly, it concluded it will be those on the lowest incomes who will suffer the most. The government cannot simply push ahead with policies that leave young people without access to the key things that help us get on in life - education and work. The short and long-term needs of the country depend on a highly-skilled workforce.

If the government thinks the price of education is expensive, it should consider the cost of ignorance.

See also:

• Stories from the economy, or: The prospects for young people, and other grim tales – Richard Exell, November 17th 2011

• Million young unemployed figure highlights enormity of the situation hitting our youth – Rory Weal, November 16th 2011

• Osborne’s refusal to increase demand leaves young unemployed without hope – Tony Dolphin, November 14th 2011

• The devastating crisis hitting Britain’s young people – Rory Weal, November 9th 2011

• IFS: Education spending will “shrink” at fastest rate “since at least the 1950s” – Shamik Das, October 25th 2011

One of Scotland’s major teaching unions has warned that virtually every school north of the border now faces closure on the November 30th as public sector workers prepare for a day of action in protest against the UK government’s proposed reforms to public sector pensions.

The warning from the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association (SSTA) came on the day its members, comprising 9,000 secondary school teachers in Scotland, voted  in favour of industrial action, supported by 79.19% of the 66.3% of members who voted in the strike ballot.

Warning of the likely consequence of the action, following strike ballots having been carried by both the NASUWT and Scotland’s largest teaching union, the Educational Institute for Scotland, Ann Ballinger, General Secretary of the SSTA, warned:

“It is now virtually certain that 99% or more of Scotland’s primary and secondary schools will be closed on November 30. We regret that the government has done nothing to change its view on the more damaging aspects of its pension proposals.”

Arguing that the coalition government’s behaviour in the negotiations was akin to that of a “Victorian millowner”, Ballinger continued:

“Is there any willingness on the part of the current government to see the damage being done? Perhaps the matter is clearer if we ask what interest the current government really has in the provision of good public services generally but in particular of a good state education service.

“How many of the current cabinet would have a clue?

“The latest government threat that the current ‘offer’ will be withdrawn if strikes go ahead exhibits the level of thinking prevalent in the current Westminster government. We see an approach to public service which would be on a par with that expected from a Victorian millowner for whom every penny spent on the workforce is seen as a disaster.”

The news of yet another union preparing to walk out just a day after cabinet office minister, Francis Maude, warned unions the government would be prepared to harden up laws concerning strike action came as the SNP and Scottish Labour engaged in a spat over support for striking workers.

Having dubbed Whitehall’s plans for a shake-up of public sector pensions as a “naked cash grab”, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth John Swinney has since explained he will be prepared to cross picket lines at Holyrood on the 30th in order to attend a debate on the pensions.

His stance, however, has promoted Labour’s Richard Baker, a supporter of the day of industrial action and the shadow finance secretary, to accuse Swinney of preferring to “play political games and score political points” rather than supporting hard working public sector workers.

See also:

• Unless pay gaps are reduced, we’ll end up with Victorian levels of inequality – Shamik Das, November 22nd 2011

• New survey shows public more willing to take action over pensions – Neil Foster, November 21st 2011

• More evidence Gideon’s savage attack on public sector pensions will hit women hardest – Nigel Stanley, November 21st 2011

• Relaxing worker protection to boost employment belongs to the last century – Declan Gaffney, November 16th 2011

• Enough is Enough: Why young people deserve a decent pension – Adele Reynolds, November 11th 2011

A new report today reveals education spending will be slashed by more than 13 per cent over this parliament – the largest cut since at least the fifties.

Contrasting the cuts ahead with Labour’s record investment in education, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says:

Public spending on education in the UK grew rapidly during the 2000s. Over the decade between 1999–2000 and 2009–10, it grew by 5.1% per year in real terms, the fastest growth over any decade since the mid-1970s.

As a result, it rose from 4.5% of national income in 1999–2000 to reach a high point of 6.4% in 2009–10. Going forwards, we estimate that public spending on education in the UK will fall by 3.5% per year in real terms between 2010–11 and 2014–15. [See Table 1]

This would represent the largest cut in education spending over any four-year period since at least the 1950s, and would return education spending as a share of national income back to 4.6% by 2014–15.

Table 1:

This morning’s IFS analysis also finds:

As with most areas of government spending, education spending is set to shrink in real terms over the Spending Review period… [Estimated] total public spending on education in the UK will fall by over 13% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15. This represents the largest cut in education spending over any four-year period since at least the 1950s. [See Graph 1]

The cuts will be deepest for capital spending and higher education, followed by 16-19 education and early years provision. Schools spending is relatively protected, and schools with the most deprived intakes are likely to see real-terms increases in funding. However, the majority of schools will see real-terms cuts.

Graph 1:

The IFS concludes:

Having risen by historically large amounts during the 2000s, the UK’s education budget is now set for an historically large fall over the next few years.

Schools will see smaller real-terms cuts than other areas of education spending, while cuts to public spending on higher education will be more than offset by higher tuition fees. The biggest challenges lie ahead for the early years, youth services and 16-19 education, where spending is set to fall by around 20% in real terms.

Of course the key question is what these cuts in financial resources will mean for the outputs of the education system, such as young people’s exam results or earnings potential.

Indeed. The dire consequences of the government’s savage education cuts will not be fully felt for years; the futures stolen, ambitions thwarted, lives ruined, will only become truly apparent once the damage has been wrought, the horrors irreversible.

See also:

• Gove’s three priorities? Gove, Gove, Gove – Alex Hern, October 4th 2011

• Fees, cuts… Is this what Cameron means by “giving young people back their future”? – Shamik Das, September 14th 2011

• IFS questions Osborne’s “short sighted” failure to invest in science and skills – Shamik Das, September 5th 2011

• Priced out of the playground: Tory Wandsworth to charge kids to play – Shamik Das, May 12th 2011

• Toby Young is wrong about the cuts and wrong about the march – Nicola Smith, March 29th 2011

Sarah Teather was confronted at Education Questions in Parliament today about the government’s continued commitment to Sure Start centres.

When asked about their funding, the children’s minister told the House:

“There was no reduction in revenue funding for Sure Start children’s centres in 2010/11. From April 2011 funding for childrens’ centres is included within the early intervention grant.

“It is for local authorities to decide how to use this funding taking account of their statutory duties and local needs.”

You can read a full transcript of the exchange here.

On the one hand, Teather has stepped back from David Cameron’s claims in February the Sure Start budget had been increased:

“We have maintained the money for Sure Start. We have maintained the money for children’s centres… The budget is going up.”

In fact, the budget was 10.9% lower than the amount that it had been in 2010-11 – the only increase is that by 2012-13, it is only expected to be 7.5% lower than it was before the Conservatives slashed it.

Teather didn’t quite make the same false claims, but her argument there was no reduction isn’t true either.

As Adrian Bailey (Labour, Sandwell) pointed out in his reply to her claim:

“The funding for Sure Start nationally as a result of the changes in the funding streams that have taken place amount to a slashing of expenditure of something like 22% nationally… And of course the removal of the ringfencing condition gives the opportunity for LAs to plug their gaps in other services with Sure Start funding.”

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North) then managed to wholly drop Teather in it, asking:

“Could the minister confirm that despite the apocalyptic warnings from the party opposite there are broadly the same number of sure start centres as there were when the coalition came in to power?”

Teather, of course, could not confirm such a thing – because it isn’t true. As Left Foot Forward has shown, 31 sure start centres had closed by July, and with 83 per cent of councils cutting funding, that number is sure to rise.

Before the election, the prime minister said:

“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this… Not only do we back Sure Start, but we will improve it.”

The real disgrace is yet another broken Tory promise.

See also:

• Another broken Tory promise: 31 Sure Start centres have already closed – Shamik Das, July 27th 2011

• Cameron: Sure Start budget “going up”; the reality? Sure Start is under threat – Daniel Elton, February 9th 2011

• Cameron betrays 60,000 families as 250 Sure Start centres set to shut – Will Straw, January 28th 2011

• Pupil premium may come from Sure Start & EMA budget – Will Straw, July 27th 2010

• Defending Sure Start against vicious right-wing attacks – Shamik Das, March 18th 2010

Michael Gove today gave his speech on education. The allocated slot was largely a back-slapping affair; indeed, almost three quarters of the time he’d been allotted was filled up with content-free puff. So little time was left for Gove to talk that it almost seems as though nobody quite trusts him to stay on message for more than 15 minutes.

Even light little pieces like a video-link to David Cameron, talking from a school in Manchester as children behind him force themselves to look round, two pre-recorded bits from different free schools, two speeches from headteachers, and one regulation schoolboy didn’t leave Gove quite in the clear, however.

There were a few cringeworthy moments buried within.

The first was after introducing the West London Free School, when a description of the school as “truly comprehensive” with pupils “from all backgrounds” was followed up with interviews with uniformly well-spoken middle-class children – exactly what people were worried would happen. “All backgrounds” apparently includes “so long as you aren’t working class”.

The second was the introduction of Sally Coates, the principal of Burlington Danes Academy in West London – set up by Labour in 2005, a fact strangely glossed over in her speech. The Tories seem to be glossing over the difference between academies and free schools in a way that many of their opponents will question.

The third was Gove himself, playing on a theme prevalent throughout the conference. Talking about a visit to a Chinese school, he says he was handed a book filled with academic journal articles written by the students, and presses the implication that the UK is facing enormous competition from overseas in leading quality in education.

Unfortunately for Gove, many listeners’ gut reaction to this story will indeed be correct – it says little about the quality of Chinese education, and much about the quality of Chinese journals.

Enough about the fluff, on to the content! Except, well, that’s tricky. There wasn’t a lot.

Gove did manage to highlight a worrying statistic from British education (albeit one much the same as that highlighted by Ed Miliband last week), saying:

“The big divide in English education is between rich and poor”

He pointed out how concerning it is that the top five private schools get more pupils into Oxbridge than 2000 state schools do. But he didn’t offer many ideas to correct this imbalance, other than explaining that he was angry at Labour for having allowed it.

Of course, he didn’t mention that state entry to (to pick one of the two) Oxford has risen by five per cent since 1996, from 41.6% (pdf) to 46.8, or that state school pupils now make up the majority of UK students accepted. Nor did he make any mention of the outrageous fact that the private schools which create this discrepancy are the recipients of, in effect, £120 million of public funding.

Instead, the solution apparently lies, as with much in this government, with fathers getting their act together:

“If you are there at your child’s conception, you should be there for the rest of its life”

Quite aside from the fact that Gove seems to think it is possible not to be there at your child’s conception (unless he is attacking the great scourge of the IVF father), there isn’t really any explanation provided as to how fathers being more present will help overcome an entrenched socioeconomic divide, the second largest in Europe.

Perhaps the Tories should have taken their plan to its conclusion, and got other people to speak for the full hour of Gove’s slot.

See also:

• Michael Gove: An Idiot Abroad – Sonny Leong, January 4th 2011

• Gove is the roadblock to Burnham’s calls of aspiration, aspiration, aspiration – Alex Hern, September 29th 2011

• League tables show Gove’s lack of ambition on underperforming schools – Rick Muir, January 13th 2011

• Fees, cuts… Is this what Cameron means by “giving young people back their future”? – Shamik Das, September 14th 2011

• Gove’s ‘for-profit’ free schools lust overlooks warning signs from US – Amelia Peterson, September 5th 2011

By Amelia Peterson

Andy Burnham yesterday announced at the Labour Conference plans for a ‘Modern baccalaureate’ that offers a different model of achievement to Michael Gove’s English Bacc. The qualification, which would allow a much broader scope of subjects than Gove’s, and would also place emphasis on developing life skills and capabilities, is a ray of hope for educationalists who feel Coalition policies are sending us not ‘back to basics’, but simply backwards.

Leading academics have been working for decades to reform education so that it is in line with the needs of individuals in the modern world. Some of this has crystallised into the 21^st Century Learning Initiative. It has been pointed out again and again that a traditional content-based curriculum supports a notion of school as a place where children learn to sit still and do as they are told – preparation for work in a factory, not in the twenty-first century world where basic tasks can be done by machines and creativity and innovation are prized skills.

It has been forty years since academics at Harvard’s Graduate school of Education began trying to devise methods of teaching that would enhance actual understanding of content – what are sometimes called ‘thinking skills’. One of the leaders of this movement, David Perkins, has recently retired from teaching, and when reflecting on the impediments that prevent school from taking up these methods, first and foremost came government policy. The USA is still under the grips of ‘No Child Left Behind’, where teachers are under immense pressure to improve basic test scores, and feel they cannot give time to open-ended teaching practices. Here in the U.K. we have a similar problem: as long as we keep ranking schools according to the test, there will be teachers who do no more than teach to it.

Some countries have made more effort to try and update their education policies, not least Scotland, where Perkins’ ideas are a core part of the Curriculum for Excellence. Skills such as problem-solving and creative thinking are given a nod amongst the platitudes of England’s national curriculum ‘aims’, but this is not currently reflected in our methods of assessment. The EBacc has done nothing to improve that situation: it is still perfectly possible to achieve this ‘gold standard’ with traditional spoon-feeding. This is not to say no teachers in Britain ‘teach thinking’ – many no doubt try to – but they are given no specific encouragement by their system. The exclusion of R.S. from the EBacc was a particular blow to the prospect of developing reflective, open-minded students.

Burnham’s ‘ModBacc’ offers hope because it places engagement at the centre. The crucial role of schools in the 21^st century is to turn pupils into life-long learners. This means giving them the scope to discover and pursue their own interests. Gove introduced the Ebacc in the name of common standards and common knowledge, and these things are important to some, but they can never be achieved if the pupils aren’t on board. Burnham’s is a proposal better suited to our time and nation.

See also:

• Gove is the roadblock to Burnham’s calls of aspiration, aspiration, aspiration – Alex Hern, September 29th 2011

• Fees, cuts… Is this what Cameron means by “giving young people back their future”? – Shamik Das, September 14th 2011

• Yet again the detractors seek to undermine GCSE results – Kevin Courtney, August 25th 2011

• League tables show Gove’s lack of ambition on underperforming schools – Rick Muir, January 13th 2011

Andy Burnham called today for Labour to go further than Blair’s call of “education, education, education”, saying that their new priorities must be “aspiration, aspiration, aspiration”. Miliband yesterday raised the issue in his own way:

[The] truth is that the problem in some of our schools is not just investment. It’s also about values. Of bright children held back when aspirations are low. Or when closed circles at the top of society shut them out. In any one year more than a quarter of our schools don’t even send 5 kids to the most competitive universities. Is anyone seriously telling me that there aren’t pupils at any of those schools who are good enough to go?

Although some universities will be smarting at the implication that they are not trying hard enough to reach out to students with deprived backgrounds, the lack of aspiration is a real problem. The number of students who are told by their school not to bother applying makes any access effort by the universities themselves wasted. Burnham today echoed Miliband’s calls for aspiration for the brightest, regardless of class, calling for a Labour alternative to Gove’s English Baccalaureate:

A curriculum that sets high ambitions for everyone in English and Maths. A curriculum that gets young people ready for the modern world where they can expect to have around 10 job changes and will need different skills and qualities to succeed. Not segregated routes between academic and vocational education but a true Baccalaureate. A unified programme of study geared to the needs of the 21st century: stretching the brightest, yes, but giving all children a relevant route and a solid qualification behind them.

And he made a strong argument that Labour would stand apart from Gove’s plan by calling for aspiration for all students, not just those on a path to the top universities, by re-hauling the apprenticeship system:

Young people on the university path know what is expected if they are to make the grade. I want young people who aspire to apprenticeships to have the same clarity, ambition and sense of purpose. I want them to be able to find out and apply for them in exactly the same way as people apply for university. So let’s look at a national UCAS-style system for apprenticeships, raising sights, rewarding those who work hardest, giving all children hope and a goal in life.

So whereas the Conservative plan to “give [young people] back their future” involves Tuition fees trebled to £9,000, the abolition of Education Maintenance Allowance, £200 million cuts to careers services, record youth unemployment, Tory councils charging poor kids to access playgrounds, cuts to Sure Start, and cuts to free school meals, the Labour plan for aspiration for the youth involves making the top universities accessible for every social background, and putting in place a curriculum that aids students of every ability. That is a comparison which must look quite concerning for Gove and co.

See also:

• Fees, cuts… Is this what Cameron means by “giving young people back their future”? – Shamik Das, September 14th 2011

• Burnham: “What on Earth is Simon Hughes’ job all about?” – Shamik Das, January 20th 2011

• Look Left – Johnson and Coulson quit as everyone forgets about Blair – Shamik Das, January 21st 2011

• League tables show Gove’s lack of ambition on underperforming schools – Rick Muir, January 13th 2011

Andrew Harrop is the General Secretary of the Fabian Society

The position of childcare in our national life was transformed during Labour’s time in office. What was once a purely private affair, for a small minority of families, moved into the public sphere. Over 13 years there was a vast extension in the state’s funding, regulation and facilitation of childcare. In the process, the left showed that it can still win popular support to push out the boundaries of the welfare state, when social change demands it.

Now those boundaries are changing again, through a combination of spending cuts and welfare reform. This year’s cuts have reduced work incentives for families who need childcare and the current plans for Universal Credit fail the childcare test.

With more money, defects in the design of the new mean-testing system can be remedied, but this begs a bigger question. Should the left not aim for universal children’s services rather than the rationalised targeting of childcare subsidies?

The 2010 Spending Review gave with one hand, but took a lot more away with the other. In came the promise of free nursery places for disadvantaged two year olds; but this was more than offset by a significant cut to the childcare tax credit.

Parents with low earnings now need to pay a minimum of 30% of their childcare costs, up from 20% under Labour. This move adds £30 a week to the bills of many struggling families. It’s also bad for work incentives. Fabian Society research for Gingerbread suggests that, for single parents, the effect of the April tax credit cuts was to reduce the average gain from being in work by almost £500 per year.

The introduction of Universal Credit will be another mixed blessing.

It is excellent news that Iain Duncan Smith is sweeping away the ’16 hour rule’, which currently leaves parents with childcare needs worse off in a mini-job than not working at all. But as things stand, this new entitlement to childcare is to be paid for from within the current childcare budget. The effects of spreading the same money more thinly would be truly perverse. Lone parents will gain almost nothing from increasing their working week beyond around 20 hours.

For couples with low incomes the situation is worse still, as there will be almost nothing to gain from a second earner taking a job. Has the ‘family values’ wing of the Tories found a way of forcing poor mums to stay at home, without anyone noticing?

The left can sign-up without hesitation to the principle of welfare reforms that make work pay, and make progression in work pay as well. If the coalition cannot deliver on this, there will be ample opportunities for Labour attack. Universal Credit will not work without the money for childcare. But the left should do more than just tell the coalition that it is not delivering its own intentions.

Families spend more on childcare in Britain than in any other OECD country. Improving the operation of means-testing is necessary but not sufficient, for it still leaves mid-income families facing huge bills. Why should we tolerate this? Childcare expenditure is a predictable spike in our lifetime spending profile, whether you are rich or poor. The left should build the case for doing far more to smooth these costs across our lives, through the machinery of the welfare state. That’s what we do for health costs after all.

Labour needs to remake the case for a universalist approach to childcare. That means building on our legacy and promising to prioritise spending on nursery places, Children’s Centres, extended schools and summer placements. Our ambition should be for universal children’s services to become as intrinsic a part of our lifelong deal with the state, as the NHS is today.

See also:

• Childcare double whammy: help is cut as costs soar – Felicity Dennistoun, September 8th 2011

• How hard is it for families to keep their heads above water? – James Plunkett, July 5th 2011

• Women lose out under Universal Credit proposals – Moussa Haddad, June 13th 2011

• Universal Credit – we still haven’t been told who will lose – Nicola Smith, January 13th 2011

• Many will be worse off under Universal Credit – Nicola Smith, November 15th 2010