Why Polly is so strange over child care

More importantly, though, I think the commenter has completely misunderstood Polly. Polly and her kind DON\’T believe that the best carers for under-threes are their parents. They believe that the best carers are experts in child development. That\’s why she wants an increase in childcare staffed by university graduates. Send the unqualified, untrained mothers (or fathers) back to work so that their children can be properly looked after by highly trained, qualified staff.

This is a puzzle isn\’t it?

Here we\’ve a left arguing in favour of the commodification of something. That it\’s better that something be done for money, out there in the impersonal marketplace, than it be done for love inside the family.

Most odd.

7 thoughts on “Why Polly is so strange over child care”

  1. Is it too unkind to say, just by looking at her, that she had a succession of nannies ?

    SHE was a commodity, to be shunted off, out of her parents way, while they went about the important business of socialising their world ?

    Alan Douglas

  2. “Here we’ve a left arguing in favour of the commodification of something.”

    And the subsidy to pay for it. That it is better to be paid for by taxing people than by individuals finding what works for them.

    Polly could easily argue solely for child carers being required to be experts but that isn’t what she’s wanting – she’s wanting to raise the hurdles for new entrants even higher *and* redistribute private incomes to do it.

  3. She only wants it down by the market because the market is highly regulated by Ofsted, and, in her proposal, the childcare would be done by University graduates in childcare who have been taught the ‘right’ way to raise infants. So we’re not really talking about the ‘market’ here as Tim Worstall would envision it, but a semi-socialized, highly regulated version that is to a large extent run indirectly by the state.

    (That is of course why modern lefties are less hung up about the market, and no longer so desperate to nationalize everything. It’s because they’ve realized you can basically make all industries state industries to a large enough degree just by introducing huge amounts of regulations to make them do things your way, without actually ruining them completely, which is the usual result of full nationalization).

  4. Wot Smidgeon said. Nothing to do with markets and everything to do with the child development industry promoting its own interests.

  5. The state can’t tell parents how to raise their children and inspect them, but it can instruct and inspect companies.

  6. These “highly trained professionals” are deemed incapable of minding more than three children (including a maximum of one baby).
    So twins have to be separated until they reach the age of (?three)!! Children’s birthday parties will require a team of half-a-dozen child-care professionals to supervise them. A school cricket game will require *eight* childcare professionals (and probably that will exclude umpires and scorers, because carers mustn’t concentrate on the game instead of the children).
    In the pre-historic era that included my childhood mothers were quite capable of looking after up to half-a-dozen of little Jimmy’s friends who came round to play as well as Mary’s best friend who needed help with her homework while making tea for them with one hand and doing the housework with the other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *