Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

999 replies

ReallyTired · 23/09/2013 10:23

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

OP posts:
Wishihadabs · 23/09/2013 18:51

For the last chuffing time 25 hours a week is not ft.

Portofino · 23/09/2013 18:52

I am in Belgium where free education is offered from 2.5. It is not compulsory til age 6 but has a 99% take up rate. Very much learning through play but led by a teacher degree educated in early years eduction. In addition all schools are open from 7.30 - 6/6.30. The wrap round care is about 2 euros per day. As a family with 2 working parents the flexibility this gives is fantastic. We pay a fucking lot of tax though Wink

candycoatedwaterdrops · 23/09/2013 18:52

Bonsoir Apples and oranges! Childcare provision can be very good in the UK, this policy does not affect France but do, tell us more about your wonderful life.

Wishihadabs · 23/09/2013 18:53

most of these dcs will be in school in a year. Also just say no as Zammo said.

candycoatedwaterdrops · 23/09/2013 18:53

morethan This is where you are wrong, for many people, it is not a choice because it is a necessity. I don't think you're in the real world.

Oriunda · 23/09/2013 18:55

Silvery ... Yes, as a SAHM I have to buy each year of NI contributions to make up my full state pension entitlement. Normally around £600/year. Previously, when receiving child benefit, some NI credits were made to my account, but when you lose the CB you also lose the NI credits. Apparently after 2016 the rules will change again and SAHP's will not lose out on their pension, but until then I will need to purchase additional years' contributions.

Retropear · 23/09/2013 18:58

Wee which is why I think steps should be taken to facilitate families who want a sahp for a few years.

Why shouldn't poorer families have the chance?

ihategeorgeosborne · 23/09/2013 18:59

I agree Weemee, it's the cost of living that needs to be addressed. Why aren't they doing anything about the cost of housing, gas, electric, petrol, food. If these were all lower, people wouldn't have to work such long hours. Although I guess it wouldn't enable the crony capitalists to get even richer Hmm

Bonsoir · 23/09/2013 19:00

The costs of housing, of childcare and of transport in the UK are a scandal.

JugglingFromHereToThere · 23/09/2013 19:00

Have you had advice on that Oriunda ? - I had a feeling that you can have a few years gaps and it wouldn't make any difference to receiving the full amount of state pension. I was in Japan for a year and didn't make anything up for that for example.

morethanpotatoprints · 23/09/2013 19:04

Candy

If it is necessary for both to work which I agree it is in many cases, then the necessity is to earn a wage to pay bills, if then you pay child care and loose money i.e don't make a profit then that is choice, not necessity. Which is fine if that is what a person wants to do.
I don't see your point tbh.

Lioninthesun · 23/09/2013 19:05

I would actually be able to work if they brought this in! Whoop!

janey68 · 23/09/2013 19:06

Tbh this is getting quite bizarre.
If you don't think it's good for your 3 year old to be in childcare for 25 hours a week, then don't use it!! Why on earth does it bother you that some parents who previously couldnt afford to work, find that this policy tips them over into it being affordable? Sure, there will still be some parents who find that working is now affordable who will still prefer to continue as a SAHP. But many parents will find that this does make a difference: their children will continue to thrive and both parents can work. It really does seem to be a dog in the manger attitude from some posters on here. They don't want or need childcare, but they bloody well resent anyone who does.

vestandknickers · 23/09/2013 19:10

It bothers me because the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Retropear · 23/09/2013 19:12

Errr because they're already being given help(methinks labour just doesn't want to be left out of the helping working families kudos) and nothing is being done to help the parents and children who want a sahp or to right the unfairness that sahp parents have re CB and tax.

Retropear · 23/09/2013 19:15

And yes there are countless better things it could go on.

jasminerose · 23/09/2013 19:17

There is nothing better than keeping women in workforce, giving them opportunities to better their lives for their families and providing care and education to children.

Weemee · 23/09/2013 19:18

Agree with you both ihategeorgeosbourne and retropear. It's a crazy situation that to afford to live you need to pay someone to look after your kids. It is the cost of living that needs to be looked at.

I am afraid I strongly disagree with the posters who seem to think that it is a choice to work rather than be a sahp. We bought a house because its cheaper than renting. We don't go out, we don't drink. don't have sky, we don't buy clothes/ shoes. We do buy petrol, fuel, food. If only one of us worked we would go under. I don't know what else we could have done... both have degrees (2 each in fact) work hard but being able to have one full time sahp not possible. So it is for many of us most definitely NOT a choice. If it was a choice, I would be a sahp, not doing my best headless chicken impression doing nursery drop offs and going to work.

janey68 · 23/09/2013 19:20

The proposal is for 3/4 year olds, so these working parents will already have forked out shed loads in childcare (the younger the child the more expensive nursery is usually too.) Any working parents of a child from 6 months old up can testify that you have massive costs (not just childcare but often running two cars, needing decent work clothes) which a SAHP simply doesn't have. Unless of course, the working parents use relatives for free childcare, which seems to be another tired old line trotted out by jealous SAHP. Well, all I can say to that is yes, some working parents do use relatives unpaid. But you cannot base legislation on the fact that some people are gifted something. By the same token, I know adults who are given house deposits by their parents. It's no good going through life whinging because someone somewhere is getting something for free which you've had to pay for

Xmasbaby11 · 23/09/2013 19:22

YABU. It is a good idea as it will help parents work more. 15 hours is not even two days, and you have to pay for the weeks out of term time, so it's not a huge saving for most parents. When we have two DC at nursery, the free hours will bring our monthly childcare bill down from about £1500 to £1300. It will still cost about 1/3 of DH's and my take home pay.

jasminerose · 23/09/2013 19:23

A lot of the sahps I know are doing nothing and have no prospects but the working parents have been able to train and work rising up the ranks. Its hard when you first start out as people are just at home and your rushing about, but once you start rising up the ranks its so much better, and your standard of living is so much better. In the past we wouldnt of had this until Labour started subsidising childcare, expanding this would help a lot more families. Its great for women and families imo

Retropear · 23/09/2013 19:23

Er Jasmine many of us have been in the workforce and work with our partners to provide.Many of us simply want to be at home with our children for a period of time that suits our family.

I know so many parents like Wee and it stinks to be frank for all the reasons George et al said.

janey68 · 23/09/2013 19:24

And I entirely agree that the cost of living is horrendous ... Housing, fuel, food... Awful

ihategeorgeosborne · 23/09/2013 19:26

I agree that a policy like this will be of great benefit to families who have to fork out mega bucks for child care, but wouldn't a better solution for all be to lower the cost of living? Surely if houses, fuel and food were cheaper, then families would be in a far position to actually choose how to live. I know of many parents where both work just to pay the mortgage, but is that right? Why should we be slaves to the banks just so they can pay themselves another million pound bonus for selling more over-priced shoe boxes to desperate families who have been priced out of the rental market by BTL landlords. In my opinion, policies like this are just sticking plasters to make people feel better about the 'choices' they are making, when in fact they don't really have a choice at all. It's all bollocks!

woodlandwanderwoman · 23/09/2013 19:27

The key to this is flexibility. It should be up to every parent to decide what is best for their situation and their own DC and if this enables more people to make decisions that are in the best interests of their family (be that for economic or parenting reasons) I support it. I also like the fact it has opened up a debate with tangible proposals around the issue.

It raises the question that no one seems to want to address though -

Is 25h childcare for 3-5 year olds REALLY in the best interests of our children?

If it is, this policy should be extended to all.

If it is not, they should stop making sahp out to be lazy Jeremy Kyle watching house elves. I chose to be a Sahm and I work as hard as, if not harder, anyone I could pay to give my DS the best care possible than.

It's also worth noting that not all sahp are good parents, and not all childcare providers are very good either. Particularly if a situation has been forced upon them rather than chosen. If this adds more choice, it can only be a good thing.

As a staunch labour opposer I can't tell you how much it pains me to say I agree, but I am also quite confident they will cock it all up later on by balls-ing up the numbers (boom boom!) as usual and limiting it to the cheapest available childcare for a tiny proportion of the original eligible population.