Fancy telling MNHQ what you think about the parties' childcare proposals?

Lepetit, how do you know what I can afford? With high mortgage costs, travel costs to get to work, obviously the bills to cover like everyone else, I don't have a spare £1000 a month for nursery fees but earn too much to get any child tax credit. This is a big part of the reason why I haven't yet had children as I can't afford it.

Really annoyed at newspapers talking about X hours free per week.

It is X hours per week for ~ 39/52 weeks of the year isn't it for most of the parties?

MNHQ can you clarify that in the first post?

Where I live, the council are struggling to meet the existing commitments to provide 15 hours care. There isn't the capacity to provide 30 hours a week. Politicians make these announcements without understanding the realities.

Absolutely, don't forget it's all working parents. So those with six figure salaries as much as those on minimum wage. A nice payment for the wealthy and a goady stick of 'get a job or else your child's education will suffer' to sahps (haven't seen anything about actual practical help to get them back to work if they wish to) and removal of choice from parents as to how they want family life to be.

Yes LePetit, they are being very silent about where this £12 billion of welfare cuts are coming from. I heard Liz Truss on the radio this afternoon. The evasiveness regarding the cuts told me everything I need to know.

Would love to know where the cuts elsewhere are going to come from to fund this.Funnily enough they're keeping quiet.

Yes Pauline, I'm sure they have a utopic vision of the entire nation's children in a huge warehouse somewhere, where the parents drop them diligently every morning and set out on their 10 hour day of NMW slave drudgery. In fact, if they are really clever, they can put the toddlers to work in some capacity. I'm sure there's something productive they could be doing. After all no one's any use to them if they're not contributing to the GDP. Sadly, I'm not joking!

Sorry, should have added, it's just blatant vote buying.

I'm so glad someone else thinks like I do, Ihategeorgeosborne. This is exactly what I think too and furthers my belief that all the parties consider young children a problem rather than an asset. They only seem to thought of as a barrier to work and economic growth rather than as, um, actual people

Yes, I agree with Fairy too.

And what Fairy said.

Quite frankly free school meals,WFA,bus passes and help with childcare all for the wealthy when the poor and disabled are being screwed stinks.

The thing is LePetit, I wouldn't put anything passed these people. I read an article in the paper the other day that suggested that the early years had not had the desired success they were hoping to achieve. Apparently something along the lines of middle class kids doing well at school anyway and would have done without the early years education. I was wondering then if they had something planned. Will try and find the article and link.

Childminders and nannies take their charges to pre- schools.The best option imvho.A home environment coupled with a few hours quality pre-school education,even better if linked to a child's future primary school.

It doesn't affect me, my children are too old. We are just about to be crippled with the cost of sending DS2 to uni, but the political parties don't care about that.

I think they've all got their priorities wring, tbh. We are meant to be skint. We are being told that disabled people (me) can't have their benefits anymore. We are being told that DLA and attendance allowance is going to be taxed, 40% of carers are going to lose their carers allowance. Child poverty is going to continue to rise, the use of foodbanks is going to continue and people are still going to freeze in the Winter. Whilst we are facing massive cuts, we can't afford this, IMO.

My ds attends a lovely village playgroup for his early years. All of the children will go on to school with him and it is a nice community network that we have here. Both my dds attended too and loved it. However, I can see that the 3 hours every morning a few days a week wouldn't work for a working family who would need full days.

Not sure Ihate as no pre- school for many would have a big impact on standards on entry at reception. There are already concerns re many children not being school ready.

School based nurseries actually benefit the children more.Ofsted has found they provide better provision and many other nurseries don't get children school ready.

Ballroom, I'm a SAHM myself so I agree with you. I'm just saying what I think they will do. I know that the 15 hours currently is for early years education, but all the parties have said that they will increase the current 15 hours funding for 'child care', so they clearly don't see it like that. They have also said that it will be for families with two working parents, so I have come to the conclusion that early years funding will be abolished for families with a SAHP. I was right about cuts to child benefit and I have a hunch about this too. I just don't trust them .

This doesn't affect me either, but completely wrong if a sahp is going to lose the pre school education hours.
I too agree that a sahp unless they have a child with sn does not need free childcare, but most children need a pre school education.

The other concern I have is that I have seen many children with SN which have only been picked up on once they start nursery. Early intervention can have such a big impact and it can also have a big effect on school selection etc. What happens to these children if all this is delayed until they start school because they have only been cared for by a parent (no reflection on that parent at all, it just often takes another pair of eyes)

And probably nannies, too! So they have no clue about childcare in reality.

I've used childminders, nurseries & out-of-school/holiday clubs. The best option for me, as a working parent, is the childcare voucher scheme ie tax breaks. I would prefer to see this scheme extended.

The school-nursery type model of childcare only benefits, IME, sahm's or those with grandparents. Childcare from 9-12 is incompatible with most types of work, so this model only benefits those who don't work& therefore don't need childcare.

Someone up thread mentioned sharing tax codes/allowances between couples. This would be great for us, as we've recently lost our child benefit, which has hit us really hard - our childcare bill is £800 per month for a school-age child & toddler.

Ballroom and ihategeorgeosbourne, I agree with you. Started a thread about this in chat, but no one really replied on the sahp issue. I've emailed Labour and conservatives. The reply I got from Labour refused to answer my question (no reply from Tories yet, but I'll give them more than a couple of hours!). As I see it, for many children it will be an education cut in order to facilitate a massaging of the figures.

I agree with everything Tilder said. I feel like they've sat in a room and thought up these proposals without actually speaking to any working parents. Which is particularly ironic when you consider that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all have young children and wives who work.

I thought the extra hours were just for families where both parents were working and only earning minimum wage?

Ihategeorgeosborne - I seriously hope you're wrong. I'm due my second child imminently and so will not be working for the next year. I therefore can't afford to keep DD in her private nursery (even with 'free' hours) and so will withdraw her and send her to a 9-12, 5 days a week totally free preschool. This is essential for her development and socialisation, and realistically my sanity in a year at home with a newborn. Preschools like this would not exist without the 15hrs funding.

I think people who post on here that SAHMs don't need childcare haven't thought properly about siblings, and about the value of 3+ preschool education - which has done wonders for my DD's confidence, development and ability.

Broadly speaking, nursery / childcare for under 3s = great for parents, but for over 3s it's seriously beneficial for the children. Not that politicians appear to give a flying fox what's best for children. They have to approach this from a two pronged approach, thinking about getting women back to work and also about what's best for children. If they conflate the two, it will (as it has with the 'free' hours) be a disaster.