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.

If you're going self-employed, you don't need to provide proof of income for the first 12m to be entitled.

Well said.

If you read my posts I did say
before there was free childcare

I'm shocked to see the support for this.

BRITAIN HAS NO MONEY TO FUND THESE KIND OF POLICIES!

This is absolutely cloud cuckoo land stuff.

Many nurseries have no places left for children and parents have to reserve a spot whilst pregnant.

There is a shortage of early years workers.

There is a shortage of nurseries.

Early years funding isn't well worked out and nurseries can make a loss on funded hours.

This is a classic case of political disconnect to the on the ground reality.

So say for example you get diagnosed with terminal cancer and your husband has to quit his job to be your carer you think your kids should be stuck in the house all day everyday watching you die a slow painful death rather then get a small break and a little bit of happiness in their lives. What if your husband suddenly dies tomorrow and you have a mental breakdown can no longer work you want your kids to watch you sleep and cry all day. I also think all kids need to be in view of other adults to many cases of abuse going unnoticed

But kids aren’t equal?

They’re not equal in access to opportunities, in socioeconomic background, in family situation, in attainment or development.

They’re not equal.

My son lives in a dual income household, with both parents earning well. But he’s also severely disabled and cognitively impaired. If he wasn’t, I’ll be honest, he’d likely be classed as fairly privileged. He still is, within his own cohort, because many families like ours don’t manage to have two working adults in them.

There are an assortment of ways kids can be disadvantaged, and narrowing that gap where possible is a good thing.

It used to be that those on benefits and not working got free childcare/holiday care more than working people I thought your title was misleading because people on benefits already get 30 hours now, as long as they work, but you did clarify in your post). The argument is it's better of the kids, just as those from low income families get free meals/tickets/school trips, and I'd generally say I'm in favour of it, because all kids should have a good life and it's not their fault, but I know some people disagree because they say it encourages people to have kids they won't look after well. It's not always easy to actually get a job these days so I don't judge people who are unemployed.

It's based on data. Data that children who have two parents who don't work and don't go to nursery statistically are starting way behind their peers and that that disadvantage stays with them through their whole education.

Sure of course there are marvelous SAHPs who are filling their kids' lives up to school with libraries and galleries and nature play. But loads who are not. The 30 hours isn't a requirement, it's an option for those who just don't have the ability or time or anything else to offer their kids the early years education they deserve.

This is what good policy should be about. Not who 'deserves' what, but about how to level the playing field for little children, all of whom deserve the best start in life. Think of it as helping the kids, not the parents.

On another practical note, it's pretty hard to apply for jobs, or retrain, or go to interviews with a toddler in tow.

Fortunately, I’ve taken into consideration the fact that I have a support network around me by way of friends and grandparents, extended family. This ought to be taken into consideration before you choose to have children. Obviously there are some people in horrendous circumstances out there, and my heart does go out to them. Support should go to them of course… BUT there are too many people out there who are completely fleecing the system and having kids willy nilly off the state without contributing anything back. What do you have to say about those kinds of people? Do you see how that’s unfair to working people?

Or do you think everyone who is in work is in a privileged position? And you’ve no sympathy for us?

Extreme examples but fair.

The point is it's a benefit for the children not a freebie perk for the parents.

Agreed.

Being on benefits is a red herring. It’s working v’s non working

Children of working parents need the childcare because they are at work

children of non working parents need child care as they are more likely to suffer from deprivation. There are many manifestations of this poor health, poor educational outcomes, poor economic prospects, poor aspirations. On the more severe end, chaotic and high risk households.

So if you don’t have a good support network you shouldn’t have children?

But it's not a benefit for the parents. It's a benefit for the children.

Do you not believe every 3 year old deserves the best start in life?

What mechanism would you introduce instead to help those kids who are useless layabouts who just let them watch tv all day whilst they doss about?

If you don't think those kids are as deserving of help as yours would be if they were in need, I don't think we'll ever agree to be honest

What’s that got to do with free childcare, or what someone is referring to as early years education?

Im arguing that it should be fair for all, those in work with or without benefits, and those that are unemployed.

If being in work is such a hardship, why don’t you quit and go on benefits?

Same reason as me, right, because you’re still better off working, have nicer things than if you didn’t, and a life on benefits isn’t actually desirable.

I didn’t say that did I, but it certainly should be a consideration in my view, yes.

Is that your only argument? Sounds black and white.

that goes back to the point I made previously. Most child welfare should be pumped into universal childcare. Everyone should be made to feel obligated to provide for their own children. When your baby is 6 months old both parents should be back to work or live off one income. We need to break the cycle of welfare dependency in that of you have a child, you pay for it. The state will pay your childcare and you go to work rather than the state providing you with money to stay at home. It benefits everyone, especially the children.

Is that you JD Vance? 😂

So because I’m stating my opinion, you’re referring me to JD Vance? Sounds reasonable… not….

Agree with this.

Well that model is basically communism. I don't think the people of North Korea like it very much and I don't think the people in the UK would either.

I know you think it's common-sense each person for themselves but the lived reality would be the state snatches your baby off you to put in a baby farm and forces people out to work. There would be a revolution.

Im not going to punish innocent children because some adults are shit if anything its even more reason that these kids need to be in a nursery environment for 30 hrs a week

Sorry, forcing people to take responsibility for having their own children and providing for them is communism?