Live webchat about childcare reform with Liz Truss, Education & Childcare Minister, Thursday 7 February, 1pm

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello hello,

We'll be welcoming the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare - Elizabeth Truss MP - for a webchat on Thursday Feb 7th (tomorrow) 1pm - 2pm.

As the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, Elizabeth Truss lives in Downham Market with her husband and two daughters. She was brought up in Yorkshire and, before entering Parliament, worked as the Deputy Director at the think-tank Reform. She also worked in the energy and telecommunications industry for 10 years and is a qualified management accountant.

Elizabeth recently wrote a Mumsnet guest blog on the Government's plans for childcare reform, which generated this recent thread - and childcare expert Penelope Leach responded to the proposals here.

Do post your question in advance on this thread, or join us live on Thursday 1pm-2pm.

And, as ever, a gentle reminder to all to stick to our webchat guidelines.

Many thanks.

The cultural impact is being completely ignored.

I've volunteered in French maternelles which brings the ratio down to about 1:8 with a qualified teacher and a nursery nurse in a class of 2-4 year olds. Despite the fact that they're toilet trained and the more advanced end of the spectrum they're still pretty tiny and need lots of attention. With those ratios they don't get it. The first things they learn are to sit down, shut up and do as they're told. Child-led learning I don't think.

I know this is going to sound smug but I don't think she had prepared at all for the well informed, articulate and persistent audience she would find here. Which says a lot about her actually - because who comes on a webchat without checking out the likely audience? In her place I would have looked at the thread last week and developed a convincing illness which meant I couldn't attend. It's possible her communications team really don't like her - or have children in nurseries?

I would like to ask MNHQ (although I am feeling shy as I have been told off by the headmistress herself!) what they can do (or intend to do - do they want to?) about the possibility / probability of this webchat being styled as "consultation with MN" with the implication that we all agreed with her. The NCMA has felt it necessary to publicly clarify their position, as opposed to hers, (after being alerted by a mn-er, I think) but I can't help but wonder whether they have as much media leverage as they need to effectively contest their name being taken in vain like this. As a mn-er I am furious at the thought of being implicitly and fraudulently associated with this tosh. Do you think MNHQ should have a ready-made rebuttal strategy on this - not just the wording of a statement, but what they could actually do to make people really understand that the overwhelming majority of mn-ers think these proposals are pernicious? Does anyone know the answer to this already, or shall I report this post to ask?

I think tbh it's to tick a box:
'look, we're in touch with the voters! Our mps go on demographic websites and interact with actual people and everything.'

I wish mumsnet would perhaps be a bit more discerning as to who they let chat to their members! As this chat will be added to the tally of 'lots and lots of people' who Liz has talked to who she believes fundamentally agree with her or don't really understand things as well as she does. Coupled with the hypocrisy that Liz chooses to employ a nanny and none of this actually effects her at all and it paints a thoroughly depressing picture.

Missed the web chat but here are some of my thoughts.

If the "early years are probably the most important in terms of a child's development" then there is a responsibility on the state to provide funding for it to pay a decent wage for more qualified staff.

I am horrified at the proposed increases in ratios for under 2s and 2-3s. Babies need emotional care and attention - not structured activities.

I agree that the research has been cherry picked. Also there seems to be no discussion on the difference between day care nurseries and preschool nurseries.

Durand nursery that she visited is a preschool that only takes children aged 3+ for 2 1/2 hours per day. So high ratio is not going to impact on the child here. Contrast that with a daycare nursery where the child has to spend up to an additional 7 1/2 hours. It is a completely different setting so warrants a different discussion.

Same for the different ages. Truss's responses regarding ratios were really only relevant to children over 3 whereas our concerns are mostly about the under 2 and 2-3 ratio. She doesn''t seem to understand how much children change between the ages of 1 - 4 and how the approach to childcare is totally different for the different ages. Answering our ratio concerns with details about structured activities that work well in France is NOT relevant to a British 1 year old baby.

northernlurker, I thought the exact same thing. I felt Liz had maybe been to a couple of local mothers and toddlers sessions when she was on maternity leave and couldn't believe the thick, uninformed woman she met there (AKA sleep deprived mums struggling through without the cleaner and nanny back up Liz undoubtedly had)....so she comes on here thinking "ah MN, it'll be full of those types that look harassed and only worry about whats for tea tonight"...big mistake Liz, big mistake.

2 Handbag crab, I don't think MN were at all wrong to invite her - in principle it is great that mn-ers get a chance to discuss things with the person at the heart of govt childcare policy. What is terrible is how she may choose to misrepresent this "discussion"

YY to the person who drew comparisons with Huhme's bombastic complacency

YY to Lucysredshoes about the difference between care and education for young children - unless you extend the notion of education to be so all-encompassing as to be effectively meaningless (everything young children do is education because they are always learning). Lightbulb moment - are many of the govt's policies horribly flawed because they keep trying to use "education" as a catch-all dustbin for anything they want done for ideological reasons? (difference between education and training; commercial mickey-mouse degree factories who sell themselves to "consumers" on the "student experience"; ever more hoops to jump through before you become economically active; pressures directly working against young people becoming politically active)

that was mean who mentioned Huhme, amazing how they are so alike, also Gove, odious man with his U turn, really big of him to admit his mistake, why the hell dont these people get it right first time without all this mess involved?

and I'm glad MN invited Truss, they have allowed us to see her in her true light...thanks MN from me anyway!

that was me, not mean , although Huhme would say I am mean to say anything about him that wasn't complimentary.

vezzie they weren't wrong to invite her, but as us posters have guidelines for these webchats perhaps the person we are chatting to should adhere to some code of conduct where they actually engage with what people are asking? They're not doing it for our benefit otherwise IMHO.

Hmm agree with a code of conduct,we have to adhere to one sooooooo actually listening and answering questions properly should be mandatory if you come on here and get free publicity.

Otherwise you might as well not bother and just have the flaccid News24 interviews during which interviewers let guests completely ignore the question asked time and time again.

Can we have a mumsnet HQ response please?

How will you address the risk that the government can represent this webchat as 'consultation' despite the obvious truth that Liz Truss largely failed to engage with the universal opposition expressed? Will you be issuing a NCMA type clarification?

AND

Is there a code of conduct for the participants - do you instruct advise them to read the questions and actually answer them?

Will report this post

I too would be interested to see a MN HQ response.

I would hate for Liz Truss to be able to use the webchat as an example of her consulting with stakeholders, unless she was clear that participants unanimously (has that ever happened before on MN?) disagreed with her proposition.

Surely there has to be some sort of follow up?

I personally have never felt so riled on MN. This webchat beat AIBU hands down.

Great, NorthernLurker - I reported mine too (in the end).

In practice it would be hard to enforce a code of conduct for visitors which requires them to engage meaningfully, as they say that is what they are doing even as they are fobbing you off. However MNHQ could have some bad-ass legal shit about how the material is referred to or represented - remember they own the copyright to these pages already, it is just a question of them taking responsibility for policing their brand.
Plus there needs to be something softer and more media-ey too - there needs to be a practical way of combating "mn luffs me" crap as well as the legal baseball bats, which, realistically, are just leant against a wall and hinted about.

hi Bicnod! (waves frantically - we were on april 09 together - how are you? I was gingersarah then)

Hey vezzie! I knew I recognised your name - how are you?

Very impressed at your deletion, you are a proper anarchist now

Have you been back to the April thread recently? There's been a bit of activity but not like the old days...

So do we think MN HQ are going to get back to us on this one? I honestly haven't felt this cross in a long time.

bicnod I agree, I haven't felt so annoyed in ages. It is my child's care that is going to be reduced in quality whilst the people who do it hide behind soundbites and have no intention of subjecting their own to the same. It is me that will have to choose between working and leaving my child in care I think is substandard and me giving up work to look after ds if I can't trust available child care.

Then there are all the parents that will have to work regardless of how poor their available childcare is just to put bread on the table. Whilst their taxes fund the wages and expenses of someone like Liz who thinks earning £16k for looking after 6 toddlers everyday is a fantastic opportunity for a graduate in childcare.

Hi all,
The reaction to this webchat has been interesting. From our end I can honestly say it didn't seem like Liz Truss was cherry-picking the questions or avoiding the difficult ones, she very nearly addressed all those we suggested she should. The real issue, as I see it, is that there is a genuine disagreement about the way she sees things and many way many people on here see them, so folks weren't happy with her answers! As it happens I think her team did as much preparation as any before coming (they definitely checked the thread and prepared answers to some of the early questions).

And I certainly don't think it was wrong to have the minister, who is after all the driving force behind these proposed changes to childcare ratios, onto Mumsnet to discuss them. There can be no doubt that she and her team will have gone away with a strong sense of the concern/scepticism/dislike of the some of the things she's proposing. Realistically though, no minister is going to concede that much on the hoof on a public forum this early in the consultation process. If there was was question she did avoid it was the "will you give up on these proposals if the response is as negative as it seems here?" one that was asked a couple of times.

Honestly, I don't actually believe there will be any attempt to suggest Mumsnet has blessed anything and I've been pretty out there in the media reflecting the concerns on here results of our survey with the Daycare Trust which indicated that only 5% of parents supported ratio increases even if it meant lower costs. But we will of course keep a close eye, as I am sure, will you all .

No, haven't been on the april thread for ages but I might get onto the fb group and make sure they are suitably enraged about this and hectoring their friends to sign the petition ;)

I think this is an example of that whole problematic area with MN and its (arguable? potential?) political influence, and how that butts up against its lack of democratic rigour. Personally I am cross enough to think that mnhq should proactively issue a public statement against these policies. But does that amount to an anti-coalition stance? (I'm fine with that, btw, but... mnhq wouldn't be, and even I have to admit there are of course posters on mn who do support the coalition, for whatever reason)

but on the other hand, I've now decided that it is a completely politically / ethically valid position for MNHQ to issue a proactive single issue statement on this, given that the chat was so unanimous in this very exceptionally clear case, in which we have seen the views of other bodies have already been misrepresented. [philosopher's gavel]

So yes, please MNHQ, can we have one?

and yes Bicnod, I am a super rebel now, deleted and everything*, and I invite you to sit at the back of the bus with me and wear your tie the wrong way round like me.

*although I note that Truss can't be deleted by implying that we are stupid. All I did was ask if she was stupid. She might as well have posted "STUPID" signs on the backs of our school jumpers.

Hi Justine, x-posted with you.

I don't think she cherry-picked the questions - nobody does. We think she just pulled out questions and then, instead of answering them, waffled about other stuff.

for instance I pointed out that if you are going to compare child-carer pay to primary teacher pay, you cannot elide that we have a state funded education system and parents are not individually responsible for paying the teachers of their children - which I agree with - and I asked whether similar funding could be found for childcare in order to facilitate better pay for carers. The "answer" to this said "we are looking at funding". This is MEANINGLESS. I came back to it (naughty!) but of course Truss never did.

Every other poster on this thread has examples like this.

I am glad you think Truss will not talk about this chat implying any endorsement. What will you do if she does?

It didn't really matter what anyone asked though, because Liz would only answer with what she wanted to say.

Poster: 'I'm worried about the increase in ratio of under 1s because of (insert perfectly reasonable reason here)

Liz: in France they have excellent childcare with ratios of 1:13 (neglecting to mention these aren't under 1s). In Denmark under 1s can do the 12 times table (though not with ratios of 1:4). Parents think childcare is unaffordable so we want to give them choice (I chose a nanny but hey...)

Hi Vezzie,
If we felt the webchat response was being misrepresented we would 1. register our protest to the minister 2. work very hard to publicly refute what she was saying.
As said, I think it's very unlikely to be misrepresented in the sense of implying that Mumsnet has endorsed/blessed these proposals.

And I know that is how politicians work but it doesn't make it right :)

Perhaps part of the reason that people are so distressed at being seemingly ignored is the fact that the problem with the new ratios is the worry that our children will end up being similarly ignored by their carers?