One of the big features of the budget this week was the lifting of free childcare to 30 hours per week. However, there are a couple of small problems.

1) There’s such a delay that the children who will benefit haven’t even been born yet

2) The Tories will more than likely be out of Government by then

Is it really the best policy to increase taxation and steal money from the nation’s children in order to pay the childcare costs of young mothers in order to force them to work? Rishi Sunak and his cabinet will argue that no one is being forced but that they are providing the opportunity of work. But with overall taxation at record levels, it is proving impossible for many households to survive on one income alone.

What about households without children? Why should they cover the cost of households that do? If you can’t afford to take care of children don’t have them… simple. What next? Petcare?

Jacob Rees-Mogg hit the nail on the head when he said “We must remember that there is no such thing as the Government’s money. Only the taxpayer’s money. And if we borrow money, it will have to be paid back by our children and our children’s children. It's time we give people more of what is theirs.”

Indeed, Jacob, what people want more than anything is choice. They don’t want corrupt politicians to work out their household budget for them. Maybe if people didn’t see PPE contracts and the like given to corporate cronies they would have more money to cover their own childcare. The revelation that one Baroness was Mone-ing because she didn’t get enough back-handed contracts was beyond belief.

Government is the worst possible choice to decide how your money should be spent. If you need proof of that, ask yourself if it is an excellent use of taxpayers' money for Suella Braverman to fly 4,000 miles to Rwanda for a photo opportunity with only right-wing media in tow, to promote something that has cost £140m, but will likely never happen.