You play, we pay

The Taxpayers' Alliance blog Burning Our Money has as its non-job of the week Islington's advertisement for a Senior Play Ranger.

The requirement for "an experienced play worker who is level 3 qualified in play work" alerts us that this is not some isolated Islington loonery - there is a whole qualification structure out there. We know it must be important because Islington will be using "initial two-year funding received from the Big Lottery Fund". Yes, lottery players, your money is going to good causes.

How much of this is going on? Search Google for .uk sites which include the word "council" and the phrase "play ranger", and it offers you "about 3,250 pages". I'm not going to read them all, but one guesses that:

1. There will be a 'national strategy'

2. There will be guidelines and enablers and possibly inspectors

3. It will be costing us a lot of money across the country.

Indeed, North Hertfordshire helpfully inform us that

The Government-commissioned document ‘Making the Case for Play’, produced by the Children’s Play Council (2002), has highlighted the importance of play in children’s development and raised its profile nationally. In 2005, central Government pledged £200 million to improve children’s play facilities, and in November of that year the Big Lottery Fund (BLF) launched a £155 million Children’s Play Initiative.

How does North Herts get its hands on a share of this boodle?

Each District Council has been allocated a proportion of the BLF Play funds, with North Hertfordshire entitled to up to £227,000 over three years. However, in order to draw down these funds, Districts have to make a written application setting out their intentions. Part of this criteria (sic) is that Councils have a Play Strategy and Play Partnership.

There were four "contact officers" for the North Herts strategy submission, the Acting Children’s Services Development Manager, the Community Development Manager, the Senior Lawyer, and the Accountancy Manager. I bet they even took their meetings seriously.

This goes on across the country. Here's an inspiring picture from Richmondshire (no, I didn't invent it). Smiling are (left to right) Paul Radley, Army Welfare Service; Kate Davis, Richmondshire Community Safety Partnership (on the swing); Coun Jane Branch, Chairman of Play Partnership and Member Champion for Recreation and Healthy Lives; Judith Bromfield, Richmondshire Council for Voluntary Services; Lynda Powell, Head of Partnerships, Richmondshire District Council; Vivienne Osborn, North Yorkshire County Council 4 Youth; Simon Robson, North Yorkshire County Council Sure Start. Good people, doubtless, but should we be forced to afford them?

To take one more example, Cheltenham's Play and Free Time Strategy for Children and Young People in Cheltenham 2005 - 2008 informs us that

The Play and Free Time Strategy for Cheltenham has been developed by using three key strategic agendas, Every Child Matters, the Gloucestershire Play Policy and Cheltenham’s Community Plan.

Perhaps not surprisingly considering this ludicrous spending (not to mention the ludicrous overheads caused by all this paperwork), we find that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was involved.

“When children play together, parents invariably talk together and new community alliances are forged. Inclusive play spaces can be the seedbeds from which sustainable and inclusive communities grow.”

That won't stop if the play strategy and the play rangers are abolished overnight.

If we are to have national nannies, they should be funded locally, so that local communities can decide whether they want to pay for such a "service", and if so what they want it to do in their area.

Maybe local communities would prefer their money to be spent on open spaces. Maybe local communities would prefer their money to be spent on home care for the elderly. Maybe people in local communities would prefer their local authorities not to spend their money on this at all, but to leave it in their own pockets, where it came from.

But how much more convenient for the state nannies to organise it centrally. Local authorities are immune from challenge, because they are bound by national rules. So the central bureaucrats can nanny all the local authorities, and being part of the large central apparatus they themselves are safer from challenge.

It is not the state's money. It is not the local authorities' money. That money belongs to the people. You play, we pay.