Ending the childcare arms race

I think the message from government is that both parents should be working and putting their children in to childcare. I would welcome debate about that, it’s really difficult to discuss without people taking offence though. The research didn’t show nurseries were better for children who didn’t have adverse circumstances at home. There is huge benefit to children from being cared for by engaged and able parents and grandparents and that should be recognised too. I really think prior to school age we should be supporting choice, at least to work part time

I’m sorry, Skimm, that sounds utterly shit

Once upon a time single parents weren’t forced off of income support until their youngest was at secondary school, then it went to 7, then 5 and I believe now, 3? So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if 7 months is the next stage.

Maybe fewer women would return to work if they could afford to stay at home, but surely that needs to be considered individualistically by families when they are making their reproduction plans.

This reminds me of a particularly smug middle class pregnancy book that advised ‘wearing one’s husbands clothes.’

A very lazy, poorly thought through article. Sorting out tax would be lovely but it won’t make enough difference to most two parent family incomes for one to suddenly stop working. Housing costs are too high, yes, and what does she actually propose to do about it? Nothing, because no one knows what to do about other than creating overpriced new builds to inflate the construction market.

If she’s so desperate for everyone to stay home with the kids, then you’ll need to make child benefit the equivalent of the median income of wherever the person lives. No? Didn’t think so.

Great post 👏

Very strange article with lots of criticisms of current government policy (conveniently forgetting who she works for as an MP) and no actual solutions.

I always wonder who is looking after her children. There is a faint whiff of hypocrisy across the whole piece.

I don’t think anyone’s hellbent on us returning to work. It is not going to be compulsory or expected that babies under one must start formal childcare - she’s being a bit dramatic to suggest so. The gvmt can’t win - I think they have reacted quite quickly to the childcare crisis and many families will benefit hugely. Such overly emotive words used - my baby has been looked after by a ‘stranger’ since 10 months old, they have a wonderful relationship and have a lot of fun together. Her father and I were strangers to her once too 🙄

Maybe fewer women would return to work if they could afford to stay at home, but surely that needs to be considered individualistically by families when they are making their reproduction plans.

The article lists the benefits to babies when their mothers stay home, but fails to mention the benefits to children (and women) when mothers return to work. No mention of the benefits of present fathers, they can do as they please and get a pat on the back for it. There’s no perfect way to parent, every family is different, and the new free hours allow families greater freedom of choice.

I personally think that women do a lot of good for the wellbeing of society being out of the home - involved in the running of our country’s organisations. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a country run solely by men, there are a few of those in the world, and they’re not very nice places. No doubt, women also do a great deal of good inside the home. We need to find a way to achieve a balance - and some families do find this balance. Some take a few years out when the babies are little, some work part time, some choose careers which allow flexible working. I happen to be a teacher, so earn the average UK wage, but get the balance of 13 weeks off per year, and 3 hours a day at home with the little ones awake. Some nations are better at safeguarding family time than we are - I’d like to see this in the UK - for example, it should be illegal for employers to expect unpaid overtime, and no contact should be allowed outside of working hours, during holidays etc etc.

As for her solutions: less tax and housing reforms, she is rather vague about what exactly those solutions would entail.

I, for one, am glad to be returning to work after having a baby, but my god, do articles like this remind me (not my DH) that I should feel guilty about that.

Hyperbolic and misleading? A few examples -

“handed over to the State”

“taken from their mothers and put in the care of strangers for hours and hours every day.”

“For the State to actively encourage mothers back to the workplace as soon as possible is to completely devalue the irreplaceable role of mothering in the crucial first two years of a child’s life”

“Politicians should stop treating babies as a hindrance to economic growth and instead support the bearing and raising of children as the key to a strong, prosperous and productive nation”

I 100% agree that housing costs in our country are too high & that the burden of taxation falls too heavily on low income families under the current tax system but it’s a bit rich coming from a politician whose party has been in government for 13 years.

The Conservatives have been in power for a decade. In that time, if they’d wanted to financially incentivise SAHP, they could have:

• sorted out the marginal tax rate on child benefit, and tackled the issue of SAHP (usually mothers) losing eligibility because their partners earn over the threshold
• increased maternity allowance to the same rate as SMP
• increased the rate of SMP so that lower earning women could take a longer maternity leave
• investigated ways to use 15/30 hours for grandparent care
• Not cut benefits for third and subsequent children

They haven’t, because that might mean that lower income families would benefit. Ms Cates should understand that the party she represents has had the chance to address these issues, and it’s failed, because fundamentally it doesn’t want to reduce inequality.

Lots of young children love nursery and studies show it's good for them. Definitely better to be in nursery full time than being forced to live in a household with domestic violence because that is the only way they can be fed. Grandparent care is less good for children and will be increasing unavailable as grandmothers have to work until their seventies.

Of course I don’t think those women are unhinged. In fact, I was very much one of them - I massively reduced my working hours when my children were small. One the things that made that possible was AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE making it possible to take a lower paid job than I’d had previously.

Since then, the costs of childcare have sky rocketed and Sure Start - which was a wonderful thing, levelling the playing field for children & parents - has been decimated.

Its absolutely right that politicians are trying to find solutions that make childcare for very small children more consistent, higher quality & more affordable - that increases parents choices about how much & the kind of work they do.

I think the language of the article is extremely hyperbolic & misleading.

What's unhinged? The polling? The points about long-term structural reform addressing the underlying problems?

Maybe this is unhinged?

"If politicians really want to improve family finances, then tax and housing reform are the only real solutions. But in the clear absence of any political appetite to address these two issues, taxpayer funded childcare seems to be the only option on the table. Sadly it’s an option that seems doomed to fail, given that in the current economic climate we have neither the money nor the workers required to deliver the number of childcare places that both political parties are promising"

This bit?

"for so many families in 2024, theoretical arguments about what babies or mothers might want will be irrelevant. Whatever families wish for in an ideal world, in the real world parents must feed, clothe, and provide for their children. And, over the last 30 years it has become increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet on one full-time income, driving an increase in the number of parents of small children in full-time work and consequently more demand for formal childcare."

Or this?

"The key drivers for this are taxation and housing costs. Following tax reforms in the 1990s, British families pay far more tax than their OECD counterpartss_, thanks to our system of individual — rather than household — taxation. This, combined with frozen tax thresholds, and the way that benefits are withdrawn as income increases means that many families are paying effective tax rates of 70 or 80 per cent on every additional pound they earn. In this context it is almost impossible for one partner to increase their net earnings enough so the other can take time off to look after small children."

Is this unhinged?

"over the last thirty years, the average house price has doubled from four times to eight times the median annual wagee_. If housing costs and taxation had remained static as a proportion of household income, British families would be better off by hundreds of pounds a month."

Really good article. Thanks for sharing OP.

Honestly, I think this article is unhinged. Absolutely noone is advocating forcing babies into childcare.