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

Actually once you add in holidays, sick days, weekends, then it would be less than 40% of their (awake) time that a child was spending at full time nursery. So yes the parents very much are still raising the child.

Well obviously thr gov want as many people working as possible to pay taxes, not hard to understand. Imo being a SAHP is a choice that families should only make if they can 100% support themeselves, why should someone chose to stay at homr whrn they can't afford to and then expect UC.

The 30hours kicks in at 3, and soon should be earlier so no reason for parents on UC to then have to find work.

There is an interesting pattern to research on the matter, if you look at it over a period of time. The critical "need" for children to be raised by a primary caregiver (i.e. woman) directly relates to workforce demands. If we need more workers in the workforce, most research shows that the most well rounded and healthy children are those that enter childcare settings. When we don't need more workers, then suddenly children are best served by being in the home with the primary (woman) caregiver.

The fact is that research proves anything you want it to when in a social setting. And reserach is heavily influenced by politics and "national interest" because the vast majority of funding for research is conditional upon the agendas of the funders. Research on this matter shows every possible permutation of the possibilities, depending on what it is supposed to prove.

also think UC should not be a lifestyle choice to enable some parents to be SAH, while others have no choice but to work FT

Agree with this @Ylvamoon. I am all in favour of SAHPs (I have been a SAHM for 20+ years) but people can't expect other families to work and pay for them to do it. It makes me cross.

The research also shows that it depends on the parents' education/economic level. Hence policies for free nursery hours from younger ages for children from disadvantaged backgrounds - their kids do better in nursery than in the home environment.

I haven’t looked into it but I know we have one of highest childcare costs anywhere and other countries probably have higher number of women working in equal basis to men.

The figures around the more equal society are likely more evident but not sure children show poorer long terms outcomes.

So many factors at play, I know that me working too meant we had better choices with where we lived and education. I didn’t do the standard ML so had a bit longer but fid go back at around age two for each.

Exactly, it's crazy to say that it's best for the baby to basically only spend the weekends with their parents - oh and some holidays throughout the year. Maternity leave should really be longer.

I don't think the majority of people think the early years aren't important at all, we can't blame the emergent issues in society on mothers ffs- I know women get the blame for everything but behave. Some of us just recognise that it's not as simple as child at home until school = good and anything else is bad.

Well of course if you're from a disadvantaged background, that's a no brainer assuming that's a euphemism for crap parents! I don't think that is the case for caring parents who are spending time to nurture their children

BTW - you can be a nurturing parent regardless of your economic status, obviously

Do people think countries where the childcare cost is lower which enables more women to work have got it wrong?

Ours is comparatively high

Personally I think if benefits are available for parents with young children to enable them to stay at home, there should be more support for those who work who want to take time off but cannot afford to- surely that's fairer? Plenty of people have their hand forced by finances, and I don't think we should be begrudging others but surely we should seek to level it out; not sure where the money would come from though.

Personally I grew up in a household with a SAHM, couldn't really afford it and we went without the basics- food was scarce, clothes solely hand me downs, couldn't afford to go on holiday, do activities, to be frank pretty hard existence. I would have loved to have had the opportunity to do crafts, have hot meals, play with other children and whatever else. I went back to work when DS was 1 and have zero regrets, financial stability and the opportunity to experience these things is important to us and something I didn't want him to miss out on like I did. He enjoys nursery, we love our time together and as I have reached a high level at work I work term time school hours and still get a decent wage. Its balanced out for me, yes the early years are important but so for me is school and beyond; I've been able to secure more time with him now he's more aware of what's going on because I carried on working.

Its different for everyone and that's okay.

Unfortunately, good quality and affordable don’t really go hand in hand. If you expect your children to be looked after by qualified, experienced, professional, nurturing adults, you must pay them decently. Doesn’t matter whether it’s in a nursery setting, a childminder or a nanny.

@JRHartley72

People can stay at home to raise their children if they can afford to, of course you should work rather than claim benefits though

'It makes me cross' is not a rational basis for society-wide policy choices

Increasingly benefits are used to dictate choices. The main reason people oppose universal benefit, despite the cost savings it could bring, is the increase in freedom it delivers.

I find the desire to control interesting. It has echoes of religious control of old.

This. And I think that’s pretty reasonable. We’re talking about three year olds here, not babies.

Well the main issue is that you can only tell women to go back to work when their dc is 3yo IF AND ONLY IF you have appropriate childcare available.

As it turns out, the current budget is been torn to pieces by nurseries saying that giving free childcare hours from 9 (??? Can’t remember exactly) months will simply decimate the industry and there will be LESS spaces available than before.

How are people then suppose to manage, I have no idea.
Unless the answer is to put the whole country even deeper in poverty. We are already at the bottom of table though…

of course you should work rather than claim benefits though this statement is made often, but the only reason we in the UK are in this mess is our dysfunctional housing market and high childcare costs. If housing was cheaper and childcare free (i.e. provided like school as in other countries, rather than subsidised) many families would have lower benefits bills and we'd all be freer to make good choices.

Nope, disadvantaged in this context literally means poor which is then linked to low education level of parents.

There's a lot of research that if parents are poorly educated and also poor ie low paid or unemployed, then the kids do better being raised part time in a nursery setting rather than by a stay at home parent. Leave them with the stay at home parent and they start school with lower levels of vocabulary and poorer social skills.

I suppose you could also translate that to mean crap parenting

The availability of childcare is a huge factor in whether this can possibly work, as @MyriadOfTravels rightly points out.

Work doesn't pay for many in the UK and childcare providers are closing. This is not going to help.

What message about stay at home in early years is that then? you need to pay for what you value. You feel this is depressing?

What like school you mean? 😂

Increasingly benefits are used to dictate choices. The main reason people oppose universal benefit, despite the cost savings it could bring, is the increase in freedom it delivers.I find the desire to control interesting. It has echoes of religious control of old.

I honestly don't undress this. Benefits aren't used to dictate choices are they? And what do you mean by its opposed by people not wanting others to have 'increase in freedom' do you mean, that taxpayers may not be cock-a-hoop to be going out working and having taxes increased while others stay at home, having the 'freedom' to do what they want?

In order to subsidise childcare like this we need more money coming in via taxes. So we need more people in work. Eg the whole point of this govt suggestion.

So in families where one parent works full time and second parent works 16 hours and gets UC top up now second parent must work at least 30 hours before getting UC top up once child is 3. Single parent must also work 30 hours or lose UC. Must also have more regular interviews with work coach and must take any job on minimum wage. In return they will get free childcare for babies from 9 months.

I can see this could be a problem if a child has additional needs. Will these people have to work 30 hours too and what if nursery won't take a child because of their behaviour? Will they still lose UC? If child gets DLA will exception be made and parent allowed to work less hours?

Will there be enough nursery spaces for all the children that will need them?

In general it makes sense when child does not have additional needs.

It will save tax payer a lot of money I think.