education for threeand four-year-olds from 15 to 30 hours a week came
out of the blue (Tory blue, of course!) and had many seeing red.
The policy move was a real surprise given that the Tories had been so disparaging about Labour's promise to increase hours to 25 and because conversations behind the scenes had indicated that extra hours were not seen as the way to go.
However, needs must in an election fight, and the Conservatives' tactics had so far not been giving the expected uplift in the polls - surely this must be a vote winner with hard-pressed parents?
It is ironic, however, that after months of telling the early years sector that funding rates for the 'free' hours were quite sufficient and dismissing the Pre-School Learning Alliance's figures on underfunding as 'totally overblown', the Tories are promising to increase rates as well as hours.
As the prospect of doubling the hours immediately raised the fear that half the settings in the country would close, this tacit admission that the offer has in fact left providers short was obviously seen as necessary.
Yet, as no amount has been specified, how can this policy - to be paid for by cutting pension tax relief for higher earners - be said to be properly costed?
There are other complexities behind the simple headline proposition. The extended hours are only for households where all parents are working, meaning that the most vulnerable miss out, and also that the emphasis is firmly on childcare and not early education.
It is unclear, too, how enough places would be provided. So many questions, and so much at stake.