I tried to bring up child care as a sleeper issue in the inagural edition of Meet the Suppressed: The Bloggers Hotstove. It was discussed and then dismissed. I should have been more firm. I have believed for a while know that this issue could be very important in the election. Judging by this week this hunch could be correct. Andrew Coyne of the National Post (subscriber only) has reached the same conclusion.
...Given that the parties would spend roughly the same amount per child, why does the Tory plan cost so much more? Because they would cover many more children than the Liberals would. The Tory plan is, in a reversal of the parties' historic roles, the more universal of the two: The money would go to every parent with a child under six. The Liberal plan would benefit only the minority of parents who choose to place their children in institutional care, or are ever likely to.
So that's one clear advantage to the Tory approach. Not only is it universal, it's portable: The money follows the child, whereverhe or she goes. The Tories would leave it to parents to choose which type of care is best for their child, and to spend their share of public funds accordingly. The Grits have already decided for them.
More choice for parents, moreover, means more competition among daycare providers. No wonder the daycare industry tends to prefer the Liberal plan. To get the money, they just have to impress the regulators, not parents; to meet existing standards, rather than set new ones. The Liberals would fund "spaces." The Tories fund children.
The statistic that is getting a lot of play is 47%. That is how many families with one parent at home. The Liberal plan does nothing for these people -other than insulting their choice and taking money from them to fund the Liberal approved choice. This is a lot of the populace to concede to the Opposition.
As Mr. Coyne says, A winning issue: child care.
