Is the ratio argument deaigned to take the focus off agencies?

[Sweetpea]

I can't help but wonder that whilst everyone is having a hoo haa about the ratio changes, CMs, parents, press etc. that the government is just pressing forward with their proposals about Agencies without the necessary spotlight on this :(

Grrrr..rant over

[bindy]

Yeah, I am much more concerned with agencies.

[bunyip]

Perhaps one reason is that the numbers issue is much easier for people to understand. Hard to have a sensible debate on agencies when there are so many ifs, buts and maybes about how they might operate.

Also, I can understand how parents might see some advantages to agencies (eg. taking the hassle out of finding childcare; cover for CM illness/holiday; etc.) I'm not saying these things make agencies right, but they might appeal to parents. But parents are far more likely to see increased numbers as a potential problem or risk to their lo. The regime can only 'sell' the idea of increased ratios on the argument that it will lead to lower fees, but nobody is guaranteeing that will be the result.

In many ways, the whole More Great Childcare package stands or falls on being able to deliver lower childcare costs, and that in turn hangs on the introduction of the new ratios. So logic dictates that the entire house of cards should topple down if we win the argument against the new ratios. Unfortunately, the passing of legislation doesn't work like that. Plenty of Bills have become Acts of Parliament with gaping holes in where essential elements have been removed at the debating stage. Example: the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991/97?) Saw German Shepherd removed from the proscribed list of 'dangerous' breeds. This had nothing to do with whether they are "safe" or "dangerous" (statistically, they are involved in a high proportion of attacks on people) but was entirely due to being a popular breed that could demand the right kind of lobbying and support.

[mama2three]

Sweetpea , thats exactly my thinking too.
Ratio's worry me far far less than agencies - I can already have 4 at times if correctly RAd and its appropriate - ie withinn the etfs guidelines for continuity etc...
Agencies are a far far greater threat and Im possibly being sceptical but I feel the the current Clegg stance is either 1) purely political or 2) diverting attention to the less contencious issue.

[bunyip]

There seems to be a desperate scramble amongst politicians to appear populist after taking a kicking in the council elections from UKIP (the friendly face of facism that can even tie its own tie.) :(

[lisbet]

Sweetpea , thats exactly my thinking too.
Ratio's worry me far far less than agencies...Agencies are a far far greater threat and Im possibly being sceptical but I feel the the current Clegg stance is either 1) purely political or 2) diverting attention to the less contencious issue.

This ^ :panic:

[lisbet]

There seems to be a desperate scramble amongst politicians to appear populist after taking a kicking in the council elections from UKIP (the friendly face of facism that can even tie its own tie.) :(

And this ^ :ohdear:

[FussyElmo]

The ratio issue is what unites all childcare workers so I think that's why its pushed to the forefront. Nurseries and preschools wont give a monkeys about agencies for childminders.

I also see no major campaigning about 2 yos being in school its almost an side issue to people. This would be a real threat to all childcare if suddenly children at 2 went to school where does it leave any of the sector :confused:

As for the coffee boy well its good he putting the issue at the front but he is doing it for his own gains. However lets do as politiicans do and grasp the opportunity of putting it at the forefront. If we need the ratios to be the major issue then use it the more we can discredit it and the Truss cronies the better chance we have of fighting all issues :thumbsup: