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

Isn't it more about claiming benefits.

You can stay at home but you need to find it yourself .

Being expected to work part time when you have kids isn't unreasonable. I'm very much of the fact don't have kids if you can't afford them.

For 30 hours?

For any hours.

Mine is similar. Breakdown:
Annual £32,765
Gross £2,730

Deductions

Pension -£443
Tax -£249
Ni -£202
Student loan -£94

Take home
£1,742

I agree with the sentiment of your post OP. I think it's awful how we, as a society, seem to be moving towards this value of everyone must work outside of the home and without seemingly any thought for child development.

A baby needs to be with its primary care giver for at least a year in order to form a healthy attachment, if this doesn't happen then that child may have difficulty with relationships for their entire life. There is a theory that ADHD may be linked with insecure attachment.

There's huge value in looking after babies and toddlers but as a society it's often viewed as drudge work and paid a pittance (if you work in a nursery).

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a choice, I know since I was a SAHP mortgages alone make it hard to afford to be one.

Parents should be able to make choices but we need to make informed choices and/or not just be pushed into it.

But @crossstitchingnana as has been said multiple times, NO ONE SAYS YOU CANNOT BE A SAHP! You just cannot expect tax payers to fund you to do so!

@crossstitchingnana

I don't think that anyone can really say what causes ADHD. But what is true is that I was at home with my mum until I went to school and my sister was out at playgroup and childminded and she is by far the more confident, with better self esteem, whereas I am the neurodivergent one. Sample of one family 🤷‍♀️.

I think being at home is challenging and even some women who do want to do it don't have the skills for it. We don't live in the same communities any more and it is good for kids to have communal experiences and to see a parent go to work, at least after the first year (which I agree is good for bonding).

Yes this is true, but the childcare reform will help this. The people that choose not to have more children are usually the ones that don't get benefits and have to seriously consider if they can afford childcare for another child, and usually not. So stick with one etc. So if childcare is funded then more parents would decide to have that extra child so helping with population growth in the long term.

Yes, parents should be able to make the choices but not use other peoples money to do so. Perhaps if more people worked and less money was needed for benefits that could be spent on the nhs and education instead.

Not the research I've read which says that before 2 there is no benefit and in fact is detrimental the younger the child starts nursery and the longer the hours they're there for. I'd do the opposite and try to give women the chance to stay at home for the first two years if they wanted to 🤷

Parents should be able to make choices but we need to make informed choices and/or not just be pushed into it.

Parents should be able to make choices, but other people don’t need to pay for them

Hey rhe 1950s called. They are wondering where you are. Did you wander off?

why just women? How sexist.

And the people who should give women this choice to stay home is her and any partner she may have. Demanding to stay home and the tax payer funds your lifestyle choice of having babies and not working is not going to get much support.

@Spendonsend ah I see, I'm undecided on that personally. I think the option to do less hours and claim less free hours should be available. But how low do you go? Maybe 20- 25, 5 days per week for 5 hours would easily fit into preschool hours. If I was to work at my daughters preschool they are only open 27 hours due to the church having a service on a Wednesday afternoon. So if I worked there I wouldn't get any top up UC because it wasn't 30 hours I worked.

Isn't it more about claiming benefits

On face value it’s about benefits but the wider message about the value of a SAHM in the early years is pretty depressing IMO

We already have the most anxious and depressed generation there has ever been and devaluing the family is just more icing on that shitty cake

Well, in fairness, if your kids are with someone else for more than 40 hours, 5 days a week .... 🤷‍♀️

why just women? How sexist.

the policy announcement was specifically targeted at women, mothers

Sounds like a fair policy, the government has set aside money to enable parents to work via funded placements. If, anyone wishes to stay at home with their chidlren they can fund that decision themselves, same as if someone decides to take a year sabbatical or early retirement.

Ok, I should have said "a parent". I also said if they wanted to.

I don't know how much people staying at home on UC get vs how much the government will have to pay for their funded nursery place - will it actually save them anything?

I don't view it as a waste of money for society either to have children at home for the first two years as I believe it reduces average aggression and is better for most children not living in poverty.

Agree. Research shows first 1000 days is critical and for a primary caregiver to be the one doing the 'raising'. Obviously they should be socialising with other people, adults and children, but this doesn't mean they need (or should) be away in a childcare

There's more to raising children than being physically with them all of the time. Do you feel you no longer raise your child once they start school? No of course not. It's about making choices and decisions for your child and your family, and also even if a child is in nursery or whatever full time- there's still 128 hours that they're not.

I don't liek the Tories one bit. But I don't think you can have it both ways, and we certainly can't afford to have it both ways. If you claim free childcare then that should be balanced by working. I know too many people who have their children in free childcare and don't work / have no intention of working. So we are paying for childcare for children that already have childcare - a parent. The current proposals will never work because there simply aren't the places / money to pay for them. But one way of making more childcare affordable as a country would be to make free hours conditional upon employment.

Interestingly the Tories themselves can't work out how they feel about this issue - requiring parents back to work conflicts with their traditional family values.

My personal view is this change is a gesture to distract from the increasing evidence that health issues are impacting productivity and economic activity.

Age appropriate @Snowglobed

Somehow people have been convinced that the early years aren’t important. The reality is the helpless baby needs a good attachment to a caregiver, usually the mother, and denying it, as we are doing more and more, will have (and is having) bad consequences

those early relationships are not nothing. It has mattered since the beginning of time and we should take a step back and ensure we are really cognisant of that

The op states when dc turn three. So pretty close to that number of days.

What research This is not what I have read at all. Are you seriously suggesting that children after 12 months should be forced to be with some random nursery for a minimum of 15 hours a week whether they like it or not? You can't be serious??

That totally makes sense, and is fair. Shouldn't be up to the taxpayer to fund beyond that