Instead, we should ask whether a policy achieves what its creators intended, whether it helps those who need it, whether it does so without infringing civil liberties and whether it justifies the financial cost.

Completely agree.

Though the obvious problem with (say) targetting 3 year olds in a certain way is that we won’t be able to answer questions 1,2 and 4 for 20 years…

Yes, I completely agree too. At the very least, even if you think there are important principles at stake, rights that are violated, or that there are hard-to-see and indirect consequences from state intervention, you need to weigh these up against the direct results of the intervention – and as you say, whether you are libertarians and statists

One question: What happens if a family does not wish to co-operate with the ‘Family Nurse Partnership’ scheme?

When I see the term “nanny state”, I reach for my revolver – then find that I don’t have one because you’re not even allowed to carry fake guns anymore. Which is great. Complaints about the nanny state are, more often than not, simply ways of avoiding a serious debate about the merits and costs of a given policy – if a policy is a bad one it is not because it is nannylike but because it will be harmful or wasteful.

Right, I’m meant to be going to glamorous Leeds in about 10 minutes, so I’ll try to be brief for once:

cjcjc:

“Though the obvious problem with (say) targetting 3 year olds in a certain way is that we won’t be able to answer questions 1,2 and 4 for 20 years…”

Absolutely. When it comes to children’s development, we won’t know whether a government got it right for many, many years, but I guess we do have indicators of progress along the way – school testing & whatnot. Having said that, I loathe the over-testing in our schools, so I should probably think of a way around that contradiction.

QuestionThat:

“One question: What happens if a family does not wish to co-operate with the ‘Family Nurse Partnership’ scheme?”

There have only been 10 pilot schemes thus far, with plans for 20 more. Up until now, it’s worked on the basis of voluntary enrolment. – The enrolment rates have been pretty impressive, actually: in the areas targeted, 88% of those under 20 enroled in the scheme

Woobegone:

“Complaints about the nanny state are, more often than not, simply ways of avoiding a serious debate about the merits and costs of a given policy – if a policy is a bad one it is not because it is nannylike but because it will be harmful or wasteful”

Exactly.

Aye, in response to cjcjc we aren’t going to have quick fixes for problems when it comes to childhood and development. The sooner everyone realised this the better. If we need to make societal change we need to be in it for the long haul and reactive to issues that arise.

It seems to this layman that the US – or rather certain US states – has a lot of experience to offer in this regard.

Whether Wisconsin welfare reform, or the family nurse partnership, there are a lot of innovatory ideas whose results should be looked at more closely.

A more useful exercise than always (and only) moaning, like P Toynbee, about how the US is dreadful and why can’t we jusr turn ourselves into Sweden.
(Without Swedish health or education vouchers of course…)