Universal, free childcare - is it a solution?

[KateMumsnet]

This week, Mumsnet Blogger Mummyisagadgetgeek reports back from an event organized by the thinktank Progress on the subject of universal childcare. Should they win the next election, Labour are considering it as a possible policy - so we thought it would be good to find out what it was all about.

So: read her blog report from the event, tell us what you think here on the thread - and if you blog, let us know about it. We'll be tweeting posts next week.

I'd prefer it if they just charged lower taxes and gave us all our child benefit back and then let us choose for ourselves whether we wish to spend our money on childcare...

Generally, if a parent decides to stop work and look after the children they're losing income for their family, so why should that family pay taxes that go towards free childcare for other families where both parents work? Stay at home parents are already losing their personal tax allowance (and now many of them are also losing child benefit too). I DO NOT think they should also have to pay (through taxes) towards other families' childcare!!

Sorry...pressed the button too quickly

The think tanks are coming out with several suggestions....however...I wish they would consult with those who deliver childcare and find out the reality of the situation from our point of view., see evidence and then go and write about it

The reports are getting closer and closer to the truth but there are still huge gaps in their knowledge...how many work in childcare?

If I want legal advice I go to a solicitor who is qualified to give it to me...so if they want to make suggestions they should ask those in the know = the providers

Half the problem is that all this is effectively seen as a woman's issue, and women are hanging onto sovereignty over the home and children,as if they and they alone have the magical qualities required to determine what is best for children. Instead it's an issue that is as much about fathers as mothers, but most posts do not make reference to this at all. Family income is seen as a block with the woman often in a subsidiary role, which feeds the beast. The sooner we decouple men and woman's income and assess people separately for everything, the sooner we will achieve proper equality, IMO.

We've got a preschooler and a 17 months old, and despite our nursery charging at the lower end of the scale we worked out that if my husband gave up work the savings we would make on childcare and the benefits/tax credits we'd be entitled to on only my salary would mean that we'd be about £50 worse off compared to us working full time.

Surely for the state it's a win that we work full time: instead of having to pay us tax credits and other benefits it gets our tax, plus by using childcare we contribute to the creation of other jobs which again create tax revenue.

By working rather than staying at home, my husband doesn't deskill but keeps his employability and career chances. (In case you wonder - I'm earning more than him, so if one of us would have to give up work because of childcare costs, it'd be him)

It's a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it, I really don't get why there's no subsidy. It's probably less of an issue for those earning very little, so they get help or those who earn a lot, so they can afford it. For those who have on paper a nice income, but half of it goes on childcare, it's a different issue.

For those who worry that helping people who want to work (and financially contribute) to stay in work (and creating jobs as a side effect) may invalidate their choice of not wanting to work - I'd rather have tax money going to helping people staying in the job market, than going to create a situation where it's not worth working.

but actual equality and the way MOST families actually function are 2 different things..

so you choose - deal with things as they actually are, or wait for some utopian ideal...

most posts are referencing the here and now.....

If you are Oxbridge educated on £100k a year and your husband on £30k then you rarely give up work. If you work the checkouts in Tesco and marry the big boss who is on £30k then you may well stay at home with babies. I have not said all women who stay home are all less well educated, previously less well paid and./or lower IQ than those in work but on the whole they are. Also if you are quite bright you don't enjoy cleaning and minding 3 children under 5 all day as it's boring.

Also the sovereignty issue is important. Women who are not up to much find the only thing they can do is have a clean kitchen and pretend to a man they cook and change nappies better than he does - their domain. That is their only glory as it were. They guard it zealously and say only they on the planet can possibly look after little Johnny properly. They are deluding themselves and ensuring there is no fairness at home and also providing a bad example to daughters who may assume women serve and men work.

Chidcare is a parents issue not a women's issue. Always challenge assumptions - if someone at work says their wife is expecting ask if the man will be giving up work, ask if he has looked at nannies or nurseries yet. If he says he is leaving that to his wife be shocked and say - gosh why? Do you have a sexist set up at home? Really challenge that sexism in order to root it out.

However the bottom line is most adults of both genders earn the average £25k a year so it is likely that most men and women who earn a lot pick a partner who earns very little. The interesting point is why women subconsciously pick men who earn a lot more all the time even in 2012 so that when it comes to which muggins stays home to be unappreciated and bored to tears and destroy their career it is muggins mum because compared to All Great Male her income is peanuts.

Boffinmum - it's not just a question of assessing income separately. You need to have more equal pay too - as when families sit down and decide who's going to bring up baby, often the male is bringing in more money, so it makes more 'sense' to keep him working. We need schools to push girls into more lucrative fields of study and career paths, we need a cultural shift away from 'long hours' and part time work being seen as 'career limiting' too.

sorry my post was referring to Boffin...

Why should SAHP be paid to stay home. Presumably, if there is free childcare in place then people still have the choice to work or not as long as the household income supports that. If it doesnt or there is only one parent then quite rightly work is something that needs to be done in order to financially provide for the child and themselves.

The state shouldnt be paying for tha luxury, maternity leave here is already very generous time wise compared to many countries. If you dont want to use childcare then you ensure you can afford to be home first before planning the pregnancy.

Childless people are already funding lone parents, CB etc but at least this way they are funding people who are contributing to the pot not just taking.

we have an ageing population and need to encourage population growth, but free childcare isn't the way to go about this.

There isn't any incentive to have children under the troy party - which is strange as I am sure they were a pro family party before the election.

The labour party go to far the other way with incentives to have children and then regardless of situation farm them out for someone else to look after.

I would rather see a happy medium, double the amount of child benefit for two children -not sure really where a happy medium is?

We do need a bigger population though as it just isn't going to work if we are all old and trying to draw a pension as there will be no one working to pay our pensions.

No good saying childless people are already funding lone parents - childless people will be wanting to be funded by those lone parents children when they are pensioners as they didn't have their own children to do that.

We all contribute in some format.

Lego, I genuinely believe that completely decoupling male and female incomes in the family would be the biggest step towards equality that could be made, as lower earning women would agitate for better careers and salaries.

It is an issue for our teenage girls too - advise them. Talk to them about careers and what they pay particularly if they only see a housewife at home and think girls grow up to be kept by men once babies come. Show them role models of women who earn a lot and love their careers. Widen their horizons. Help them think smart in terms of career. Ensure they know some women earn in an hour what the minimum wage is a week. I had earned quite a bit by 7.30am today actually (but that is my choice because I work best early in the day something that has been thwarted for 28 years of being a parent as you usually have children to get up then - they now sleep late)

I think this would be brilliant. Childcare costs on the UK are well above EU averages and I dont think its fair parents shoulder this massive cost of bringing into being the next generation of tax payers. It doesnt need to be a state monopoly. It would also give parents more options about who retruns to work, when etc without having to factor in that often the cash benefit of the second earner is marginal at best in the early years - and lets not forget that second earner is usually a woman.
Childcare is a huge expense for us that childcare vouchers doent really offset sufficiently and as I am self employed childcare vouchers arent avaiable for me.

Yes they are...some of my parents are self employed and get c/vouchers...look into it

Childcare is not expensive and above average in UK...in Denmark, Sweden and many other countries practitioners are well paid and qualified but childcare is funded by the state and tax system!!

If a cminder charges £5, half goes into expenses and red tape while parents are entitled to £6.19 minimum wage...many parents earn much more than that...is that fair?
here we have too many funding streams, often duplicating services...that is the problem
It has been reported that the rising cost of childcare is 'a mystery'...no it is not to me..clear as a bell why costs have risen but who listens to providers?
This argument is in favour of working parents especially working mums ...as if practitioners are not working mums themselves

what ff said.

Dreadful idea.

So many ideas here...which one is dreadful?

the government paying for universal free childcare.

Oh that!!!
I think it is a long way away...in the last week we have had co-operative nurseries idea, followed by 25 hours of free childcare 10 of which should only cost £1 and now universal childcare......
Looks like neither party knows how to handle this...in the meantime we await Truss' proposals on her type of childcare:5 under 5, agency, deregulation etc etc
See what a mess they have made of childcare and all CLUELESS!

Also the introduction of a quasi market in childcare has been a disaster. Yes, some people have childcare vouchers, but they can only spend them where providers have forked out a minimum of £500 in training, insurance and registration costs. If nobody in your area has done this, then tough. Yes, you can use childminders, but they have to conform to the Ofsted model of care, which pushes up costs. Parents cannot decide they are happy to use a childminder who is cheaper and who provides something closer to a family model of care, because they no longer exist. Yes, you can have free nursery hours but if you can't find a vacant place near you, then tough. Yes, you can use a nanny but you are then subject to the same regulations and red tape as large businesses in almost all regards which means paying over £1000 a year in National Insurance employers' contributions, £250 a year to a payroll service as taxation has become so complex, and soon private pension contributions as well. This is all dead money not bring spent on childcare but instead a disproportionate tax on parents going to work, and it has skewed the market, as has all the other red tape.

All this could be improved by exempting employers of childcarers from all red tape apart from health and safety at work, and allowing all childcarers to be self-employed. Childcare should be a special category for the purposes of taxation and regulations.

I think that they need to sort out the problem of the lack of Reception( primary school) places before trying this idea.

I think that this idea will lead to house price rises, black holes in provision as well as inconsistent quality as people move to be in the catchment areas of outstanding childcare. It's basically the problems of school provision starting at a younger age.

Xenia - why do you have to dominate another thread?

I have 3 degrees (one Oxbridge) but am a SAHM! Why because the well paid jobs I would do (not check out at Tescos, that would be easier to combine with kids) would mean that both DH and I would be travelling a lot. Instead I prefer to stay with my children and look after them. Its a choice, the alternative would be DH to stay at home or to employ one or more Nannies who can cope with overnights etc.
I saw a job today I would be interested in and qualified for but 120 day on oil rigs doesn't go with family life.

Universal Childcare would have to be very flexible etc. to cope with a mother being away 120 days a year too!

If ALL c/ms were able to give the Free Entitlement the choice would be much wider...parents often send kids to a preschool because we cannot give then the 15 hours and pay 2 providers
Making it available through all c/ms would reduce costs, children would get consistency until reception

If I were a politician I would send children to reception at 5, year 1 at 6 and the savings would fund excellent childcare from 0-5....which most countries do!!!

But I am not a politician and have much more sense than any of them..even if I say so myself