More examples of Labour's belief in bribing you with somebody else's money...

Last week saw the Second Reading debate on the 'Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill'. This Bill abolishes the Child Trust Fund, cancels the savings gateway scheme and the health in pregnancy grant. Naturally, Labour are opposed to the measures, and accuse the Government of abolishing these as a matter of dogma.

What they don't tell you is that these were introduced at the very end of the Labour administration, as a time when it was already clear that the country couldn't afford them. They weren't even very effective as a means of supporting the most vulnerable.

Let's take the health in pregnancy grant. Introduced on 6 April 2009, it is a £190 grant given to pregnant mothers upon reaching the twenty-fifth week of pregnancy. That is, all pregnant mothers making a claim, regardless of household income. The National Childbirth Trust weren't particularly impressed;

"if dietary intervention is to have an impact on birth weight and outcomes for the baby in later life, it should be started as early as possible"

And, of course, there was already the Healthy Start programme, which provides support by means of vouchers rather than cash, and means that you can determine how it will be spent in a much more targeted way than simply handing over some banknotes and saying, "We'd like you to behave sensibly please."

Now don't get me wrong, supporting actions designed to improve fetal health is obviously a good thing, if it is effective. But when it is introduced as a means of bribing an electorate by an unpopular government which knows that it is unaffordable, it is playing politics with the health of children. Frankly, I wish that there was the money to provide more support to pregnant women. But there isn't, and I'd rather take away the relative cream than the substantial support that families have grown used to.

And at some point, Labour politicians are going to have to come up with an answer to the question, "Where were you going to make the cuts?", rather than simply take the morally and fiscally bankrupt so-called high ground. So far, no sign of that...