I agree with the first two but not the third. Although, it being Frank Field, I'm sure there's a reasonable arguement for it.

#1 Seems like a good idea, not quite sure how practical, or open to abuse it might be.

#2 I can take or leave, seems more like a gimic than anything particularly radical.

#3 I disagree with wholeheartedly. 

> the frontloading of child benefit

Frank's exact proposal (in the Daily Telegraph) is:

Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit now average payments over a child's life approaching £100,000. Why not offer to mothers or fathers the right to draw a quarter of this sum to look after their child full time? £25,000 tax free over the first two years of a child's life would massively increase the freedom of families to choose to care for their own very young children. Payment for the rest of the child's life would be decreased commensurately, ...

Now maybe I'm overly cynical, but how many parents do you think might spend the £25k advance on a new car, a big LCD, and some other gizmos - maybe with one parent doing some black-economy child-minding/building-work or the like for the 2 years. Then over the rest of the child's life the mother won't have the Child Benefit/Child Tax Credit to buy school shoes and uniform, or pay for school trips etc? Probably not dissimilar to the % of parents who are currently maxed out on credit cards, which is quite a lot I think.

This sounds a terrible idea to me for the long run, but might be popular for the next election.

However this front-loading of payments would have to be funded somehow. Can the economy take extra taxs or government borrowing right now?

I like Frank Field a lot. There is some merit to his ideas. Given that we have just raised the school leaving age to 18 I can't see it being lowered again. Though it is clear that some alternative vocational education prior to the age of 16 would benefit some children who aren't interested in school. I know at least 2 people who effectively left school at 14 and worked in the black economy until they were 16.

I don't think allowing some children to leave school at 14 is contradictory to raising the training leaving age to 18 - I think the two could work extremely well together. Four years of vocational training before the age of 18, supplemented with day-release enhancement courses in numeracy and literacy, would be a fantastic opportunity for many students, and far more useful to them than a poor set of GCSE results and no practical skills. Of course, getting vocational training need not mean leaving school, and if it can be provided almost full-time in school then that's all the better. But knee-jerk opposition to lowering the leaving age is only damaging to students who (many already failed by the education system) are alienated from academic studies. The problem with New Labour's approach is that it thinks teachers can solve all society's problems, and believes in a meritocracy whereby only those who succeed at school deserve good wages. Our approach should be that no-one deserves to live in poverty, whether or not they fail their exams. I don't like Frank Field, and I'm not keen on the other proposals, but this should be looked into.

I see Any Questions? was trailing Frank Field for this week's program with his helpful - not - new year snipe "If Gordon Brown is to ascend from the slough of despondency into which he has plunged his Government by dilly-dallying over an autumn election, solid competence must be the order of the day."

Though he came across OK on the program, every time I've investigated his proposals involving money in detail (eg above and here), his maths/statistical-comparisons never seem to add up. I can well see why Gordon ensured he got the push back in 1998 from Minister of Welfare Reform, if his proposals then were of similar quality. Frank's 65 now, any chance he'll take retirement next election?