Is extending 30 hours childcare to parents on benefits fair?

[GimmieABreakOr3]

30 free hours of childcare to those in receipt of benefits is not fair.

Currently, the 30-hour childcare scheme requires parents to be in work to qualify. However, the UK Education Secretary has called for this to be extended to parents on benefits.

Many argue that those who are unemployed don’t need childcare. I agree. How is it fair that those of us in work are always propping up those who are not? It’s proper two tier Britain if you ask me when it comes to those in work compared to those who are unemployed and on welfare. I think Labour are ruining this country.

As I've said before they wouldn't qualify until the term after they apply for the funding. So if they started a job at the end of April they would qualify for childcare from September. So they have no choice but to decline the job and look for one that starts months later. So they are trapped as they cannot apply for jobs as they do not have anyone to look after their DC or find a way of gaining credit to put themselves into debt to pay for the childcare

@WimbyAce But ultimately it is a choice every woman has. I don't agree that it's necessarily the right one to make, but it is a choice.
When I was married to Mr Big Job frst husband I refused to give up my career (much to his annoyance as it "emasculated" him) but we could have easily afforded it. It was my choice.
When I became a single parent when my boys were still small, I still worked. I could have chosen not to, and I would have needed government top-ups to pay the rent, but it was still a choice.
When I married again, my now husband a much lower earner than my first, I still worked. Again, I could have chosen not to and we would have qualified again for some government support, but I chose not to.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

So why is it ok for those from “disadvantaged or poorer” backgrounds to make that choice to have children and be propped up but not others? Genuine question. Just highlighting the double standard. Both are choices. Thank you.

Maybe their circumstances changed? You've said your DH is the higher earner and you struggle to afford your lifetyle as a dual imcone family and that you rely on the goodwill of others for childcare. You do not sound that many steps away from losing security yourself ie your DH leaving, family and friends saying enough is enough etc.

I mean from my point of view I think if you are giving up work to become a SAHM then it needs to be self funded, not funded by the state. Benefits should be for those in need not for those that choose to give up their jobs.

I often think how amazing the country would be if all the people who believe nonsense about benefits claimants could just read some research.

All that energy and anger wasted on some lies, it must be draining.

These days we're supposed to be polite even if the opinions people hold are grounded in falsehoods. There are so many outright lies about benefits on this thread.

That’s fair. Thanks for being reasonable and respectful in your response.

What about those who may abuse the system and choose to continue having kids when they do not work?

It gives their children the opportunity to break the cycle.

The question was about choosing to have children that they cannot support financially

It gives their children the opportunity to break the cycle. This is a big part of why some people oppose changes - maintaining inequalities is a policy objective for some.

Potty training has been mentioned a few times. Nursery staff will end up being social workers if that's people's idea of sending toddlers to nursery because they need potty training and they may come from a chaotic home.

Im sorry but even the nurseries won't be happy with this as it would affect their business also as this had been said about the 15 hours never mind 30.

Im sorry but we have become very sensitive. Unless your child has a medical issue or SEN. Potty train your own child! FGS. If your parents are feckless its very sad indeed but I don't think its fair to the nursery staff who likely will be on MINIUM wage to pick up issues as though they are a social worker!.

Thanks for thread @GimmieABreakOr3 its interesting.

It may be for some but
for many it’s the cost
and
the lack of fairness in the existing system as it is
As this thread has shown

Is there real, proven evidence that nursery makes that difference in these situations? I’m actually genuinely interested. I struggle to believe myself that a few years in nursery affects anyone that much. Home life has more of an effect than anything that goes on at nursery/ school and if kids are coming home and not being nurtured by their parents, I personally think there is very little that can be done unless a child is very self motivated to break the cycle themselves.

The lack of 'fairness' of income, life expectancy, opportunity doesn't seem to be causing undue worry.

Ten extra years of life doesn't seem that fair.

This is not about fairness, it's about begrudging others a helping hand.

Nursery makes the biggest difference in homes with the biggest difficulties (of various types).

Important not to generalise, but the things that make work difficult can also make educating difficult. So yes nursery could help there.

There is research about where and how nursery has the biggest impacts.

Cool send it over! I am genuinely interested.

@WimbyAce I don't disagree but ultimately, ALL SAHMs have made the choice to give up their jobs (or have never worked at all).
But even when it has been a financial option for me (without relying on government support), being a SAHM is not an option I would personally ever have chosen. My belief is I am equally as responsible for financially supporting my daughter as my husband is, and that he is as equally as responsible in her care/the housework etc.
Regardless of financial situation.
But we are all different.
When I returned to work after my last mat leave my husband took one day off (unpaid) for a whole year in order to spend time with our little girl. He would have jumped at the chance to be a SAHD!

If you're interested you could have a look for it, I'm not your personal tutor

Yep. Which is why free childcare for 2 year olds was introduced in the first place.

If it didn't work, I'm sure the Tories would've scrapped it a long time ago.

The same way people have always done it. Where there's a way there's a will. How do you think others manage? Its like me saying I cant work as im not a 2 parent household. I could argue that my child is disadvantaged because he doesn't live in a 2 parent household. Life is unfair....

What an idiotic brainmelt to oppose this perfectly reasonable thing.

(a) it's not childcare it's early years education. The children have the right to the benefits of the learning that kids of workinf parents get
(b) in a lot of towns and cities, preschool and nursery places have waiting lists several months long. It would be impossible for any parent to get a job and then start looking for childcare and get their child settled in before their job start date. So if you want any hope that mum can start earning, you need to pay for childcare while mum is unemployed.

It's such an obviously sensible policy that I'm shocked it isn't already the case.

It is amazing how many people actively don’t want other people’s children to benefit from this policy, despite it having no effect on them or their children whatsoever.

Because it frees them to do even less than they already do.

I didn't say that there'd be a rush to the job centre, nor that it's free childcare.

It'd be better for society as a whole for the children of families living in deprived circumstances to go to (good) nursery provision, because they'd be less behind when starting school, which benefits everyone including the foot stamping op's child.