Govt stealth policy to eradicate SAH parenting

[JRHartley72]

The Guardian is reporting this morning that buried deep in Jeremy Hunt's budget last week is a new policy which will force parents on UC to return to work when their children turn three. As charities and campaigners say, it's like they just don't want us to raise our own children any more!

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/22/jeremy-hunt-universal-credit-benefits-mothers-30-hour-weeks

Yes, I’d rather they actually sorted out the maintenance issues. So many fathers getting away Scot free and the taxpayers picking up their bill

It's inhuman forcing lone parent of young children to work that many hours

What many hours? The report doesn't say both parents of young children should be working full time.

No, what yo mean is that the government doesn't want to pay people to stay at home to look after their children. My children have been in childcare since they were 9 months old. Being a SAHP is a choice and I'm not sure why anyone thinks that choice should be state funded.

It's inhumane to work for a living?
The dramatic language around this by those who want their life choices funded by the tax payers who are knackered, skint and stressed isn't helping your cause.

It's inhuman forcing lone parent of young children to work that many hours.

Inhumane, really? I don’t think it’s inhumane to encourage people to pay their own way. It’s not even making people work full time hours!

Does anyone realise that paying for lone parents to work actually costs more money? I received over 1k a month in childcare for years. That was far more than my mortgage, bills and living expense put together. I haven't contributed anything by working all these years.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz wrap around care will depend entirely on where you live, where I am there is no wraparound care, not enough childminders and the private nurseries only care for kids up to 6 or some age like that. My DC are both at primary school and go to a childminder for holiday care but she can’t do before or school pick up as already does it at a different school to my DC and doesn’t have time or space.

I do agree though SAHP is fine if self funding, I have family who haven’t worked since their kids were born, no reason other than they don’t want to all funded

I place a significant value on motherhood, thank you very much. My scenario in the rest of this post was where the children were at school. So not "very young children" and they are out of the home every day anyways.

Nobody's funding my "lifestyle choices", as you call it. I've never claimed benefits in my life.

But as it happens I think the job of parenting is important, and not one that should be outsourced, and I think all parents should be given a minimum of 2 years paid parental leave to care for their children in those vital early years, and yes I think that should be funded by the state, because that's how important I think early years care for children is.

Some strong statements on this thread

We used childcare from around two. Not seeing long term consequences of that other than my career wasn’t down the pan

I suppose the question is, are there going to be suitable jobs for all these people? I agree in principle that it's better for women not to be out of the workplace for long periods, but women with three-year-olds are still likely to need some flexibility for childcare. If the approach is taken that they must take any job they are offered, regardless of whether it's actually feasible, then what this will translate to is people getting their benefits stopped before they have found a job.

i went back to work once all of mine were 9 months also, I could have stayed at home (DH has a good job) but I simply didn’t want to, work in healthcare, it constantly changes etc and if I’d waited till they were all at school I’d have been well out of the loop with everything. I’m also studying at the minute with primary age DC because I want something for me once they are grown up and the ability to have a good pension, it also means I’m self sufficient should DH leave or something happens to him

That was to @MichelleScarn, btw.

It makes sense though in that it does a few things

1. Keeps you retained in work, enhancing skills, pension contributions promotions etc.
2. Childcare is not a lifelong cost. 1k a month in childcare support will reduce and eventually go
3. It pays towards the income of another (probably female) person who can keep their business going because working parents need childcare

@HamstersAreMyLife

Sigh. As another poster pointed out, wrap around child care is readily available, and most working parents make use of this.

Also, a lot of employers are flexible. I for example am able to pop out and collect my DC and then carry on working, a couple of days a week (we use the after school club 50% of the time)

It's high time we stopped normalising women losing their careers, and as a result their independence, when they have children. This personally for me is one of the largest and most necessary steps forward for feminism in a very long time. I'm glad to be showing my daughter that mummy's career is just as important as daddy's. Also that Daddy does 50% of all drop offs/ pick ups and parenting.

Agreed. I think it’s inhuman that a massive chunk of my salary is taken away to be given (against my consent) to people who refuse to work despite no health issues. Working part time is perfectly reasonable, single parent or not. If it’s that much of a problem then there’s something more going on.

I dunno, lots of people who don't rely on benefits can't afford to have time at home with their children, not all are actively choosing to go back to work if they want to. They've not had the choice for a long time. It's not about the government not wanting people to stay at home, you can if you can afford it just benefits won't support that choice. Perhaps spiteful but unless they can actually offer the freedom of choice to all then fair enough really. I wonder if they'll reduce the age you need to look to 1 if the funded hours actually happen.

Is that not what this whole thread is about ?Jeremy Hunt's budget last week is a new policy which will force parents on UC to return to work when their children turn three.

So parents can still claim benefits to stay at home for these early years?

You can be SAH parent all you want. Just don’t expect taxpayers to fund it.

I don’t think the research does show that all children do better in nurseries, that’s only for certain demographics. The evidence shows some demographics do better with parents?

I do think moves could be made within employers though to offer a degree of flexibility really

But it's only taking away the choice for people who can't afford to do it without taxpayer support. I'm not sure why you think taxpayers should fund what is essentially a lifestyle choice?

There is no clear societal benefit to parents staying at home, so it becomes a choice for individual households if they can afford it.

Actually I'm a parent to a teen, my childcare days are well behind me. I just shared the story because I thought it was of interest.

Of course you can still stay at home, you just pay for it yourself, why should the taxpayer pay for you to stay at home

I think it’s fine for a mum to be asked to work when their child is 3 (And I hate this Tory government).