The coalition's new childcare policy: three problems

High-earners gain the most, 860,000 single-earner families lose out and the system won't be introduced until 2015.

After months of negotiations, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will announce the coalition's childcare plans today. Under the new system, parents on joint incomes of up to £300,000 (or £150,000 for a one-parent family) will be able to claim £1,200 a year for each child - or 20 per cent of childcare costs. The £750m scheme will initially cover children under the age of five and will be gradually extended to include all children under 12. Half of the funding will come from the abolition of the existing system of childcare vouchers, with the reminder switched from other Whitehall departments. An additional £200m of support will be provided through Universal Credit. 

The chief benefit of the new policy is that will offer support to those parents who do not currently benefit from the employer-funded voucher scheme, which is provided by only five per cent of employers. Around 1.3 million families will qualify for the scheme, rising to 2.5 million as it is gradually extended. In a joint appearance with Clegg later today, Cameron will hail it as "one of the biggest measures ever introduced to help parents with childcare costs" but here are three problems with the policy that the government won't be so keen to draw attention to. 

1. High-earners will gain the most from the policy, with less support provided those on low and middle incomes. In order to be eligible for support, both parents must be earning over the personal allowance (which will rise to £9,440 this April) and 82 per cent of those families likely to gain from tax relief are in the top half of the income distribution. 

While low earners will benefit from increased support through Universal Credit, with 88 per cent of recipients in the bottom half of earners, the lion's share of funding is devoted to tax relief (£750m against £200m for UC), meaning that the system is regressive overall. 

2. To qualify for the scheme, both parents in a two-earner family and one parent in a single-earner family must be in work. As a result, around 860,000 single-earner families with a child under five will receive no support. Following the withdrawal of child benefit from those earning £50,000 (but not two-earners on £49,000 each), this is another blow to stay-at-home parents. 

3. The new system won't be introduced until autumn 2015 at the earliest. The coalition had originally intended to implement it before the next election but the anaemic state of the economy meant it was ruled unaffordable by the Treasury. However, as shadow education secretary Stephen Twigg notes, the government has found £1.1bn to reduce the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p this April.

"Parents will be disappointed that three years into this government, they will not get any help with childcare costs for another two and a half years. While working parents are promised help tomorrow, this government is only helping millionaires today."

David Cameron is pictured during a visit to a London Early Years Foundation nursery in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Bomb Isil? That's exactly what they want

The government appears not to answer the nature of its enemy, warns Maria Norris.

As MPs are set to vote on further airstrikes in Syria, it is difficult to shake off the feeling that the government does not fully appreciate the complexity of the problem Isil poses. Just a cursory glance at its magazine, the pronouncements of its leaders and its ideology reveals that Isil is desperate for Western bombs to fall out of the sky. As Martin Chulov argues, Isil is fighting a war it believes was preordained since the early days of Islam. Isil’s obsession with the city of Dabiq, in Northern Syria, stems from a hadith which prophesises that the ‘Crusader’ army will land in the city as a precursor to a final battle where Islam will emerge victorious. Dabiq is also the name of its magazine, which starts every issue with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq". Isil wants a war with the West. If we don’t negotiate with terrorists, then we also should not give them what they want.

Further, bombs are indiscriminate and will inevitably lead to the suffering of those trapped in Isil territories. Isil is counting on this suffering to swell their ranks. Civilian suffering from airstrikes only underline the narrative that the West is at war with Islam, which plays directly into Isil’s hands. And despite misleading headlines and the genuine government concern with individuals fleeing to Syria, Isis is supremely unpopular. It is no wonder that its magazine is filled with glossy adds begging people to move to its territories.  You cannot be a state without people. Terrorist attacks such as Paris thus have a two-pronged purpose: they provoke the West to respond with its military, and they act as a recruitment drive. The fact that fake Syrian passports were found around the sites of the Paris attacks is no coincidence as Isil are both seeking to stem the flow of refugees from its territories and hoping to provoke an Islamophobic backlash. They hope that, as more Muslims feel alienated in the West, more will join them, not just as fighters, but as the doctors, nurses and teachers it desperately needs.

In addition to this, airstrikes overlook the fact that Isil is a result of what Fawaz Gerges calls a severe, organic institutional crisis in the Middle East. In a lecture at the London School of Economics earlier this year, Gerges pointed out the dysfunction created when a region that is incredibly resource rich also is also deeply undemocratic, riddled with corruption, food insecurity, unemployment and poverty. This forms an institutional vacuum that is filled by non-state actors as the population does not trust its political structures. Further, the civil war in Syria is also the site of the toxic soup of Middle Eastern state dysfunction. Iran supports Assad, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, fund anti-Shia groups in Syria. Throw in the Kurdish conflict, Turkey’s ambiguous position and Russian bombs, it is difficult to see how airstrikes will solve anything.

Finally, it is crucial that Isil is seen as a direct result of the Iraq war. The American-led invasion destroyed the institutions, giving the Shia majority power almost overnight, creating deep dissatisfaction in the Sunni regions of Iraq. On top of this thousands of foreign fighters flooded Iraq to fight the invaders, attracting disenfranchised and angry Sunnis. The result is that since 2003, Iraq has been embroiled in a sectarian civil war.  It is in civil war, inherently connected to the Iraq War, that you find the roots of Isil. As even the Prime Minister concedes that ground troops are necessary, albeit it regional ground troops with its own set of problems, it is important to consider what further monster can arise from the ashes of another ill-thought out military intervention in the Middle East.
We have had decades of military intervention in the Middle East with disastrous consequences. Airstrikes represent business as usual, when what we actually need is a radically new approach. Who is funding Isil? Who is buying its oil? How to curb Isil’s recruitment drives? What can be done about the refugees? How to end the conflict in Syria? What happens to Assad? These are questions hopefully being addressed in talks recently held in Vienna with Russian, Ira, the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states. Airstrikes do not answer any of these questions. What airstrikes do is give Isil exactly what it is asking for. Surely this is reason enough not to bomb Syria. 

Maria W. Norris is a PhD candidate and a teacher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her PhD is on the UK counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 and its relationship with identity. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.