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

[ReallyTired]

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.

Retro, the fact that everybody differs does not mean that we can't help anyone.

This is about childcare, it's as irrelevant to SAHMs as it is to teenagers and pensioners.

The point that has been made by a few PPs that current funding for the free 15 hours we already have isn't enough, is the huge flaw in this plan, and will ultimately stop it from happening anyway. If these extra hours are to be funded at the anything like the current level, then nurseries simply won't be able to operate.

I for one would love this. With one child I worked a 40 hour week and barely managed to pay for childcare... with two I simply can't afford to go back. It would cost me money to go to work! And no... we don't claim any benefits at all and still won't as a SAHM as my partner as gone self employed to subsidise this.

I for one would much prefer tax payers money to be spent on this rather than the free lunches being given out from next year.

But the present gov is already bringing in help along with free school dinners and leaving CB on those with dual income up to 100k.

Many don't need this help let alone more.

Nothing has been done to help sahp,nothing.

If we have a spare 800million I'd rather the kids without school places got a place and some help to enable more parents to be a sahp.

Nurseries will simply up the fees for under threes to make up the difference. Working parents with babies and toddlers will have to pay more and this will make it uneconomic for more parents to work.

I feel that funding the existing 15 hours properly has to be a financial priority.

I think this is a good idea in principle. Not sure how well it could work in practice as in school nurseries for example, most offer 3 hour morning & afternoon sessions, 15 hours total & with different children in morning & afternoon. Without additional classroom space (& staff, though presumably there would be funding for staff) how would they fit in the extra hours?
I have a 4 year old just started reception class doing 12.5 hours a week until December so would be grateful for a full 15 hours as he had last year!

I know things have changed over the past years for one mortgage interest rates are tiny compared to how much we had to pay back then.
Childcare is subsidised and sounds like further subsidy will happen as well. There was no such thing, your dc went to nursery if you could afford it or if you wanted them to go.
There weren't any tax credits when mine were very little, just cb.
We had to manage that's all there was to it.
FC came in and things improved, we saved some of ours and have bought/buying a couple of houses.
I am hoping to be able to support young people leaving the care system, as this is close to my heart.
If this pisses some people off, I can't help that, it was merely my intention to say that it can be done and people shouldn't generalise.
Yes some people find it hard/impossible on one min wage, others don't.

This is divide and rule theory at its finest!!! To sum up roughly where we are...

Many working parents feel insecure because they would like to spend more time with their children than they are able to and the economic benefits of working rarely sufficiently compensate for the guilt.

SAHP feel insecure because they DO occasionally feel like a house elf or feel looked down upon by people with "real jobs". They have also often had to stretch themselves economically to make this decision so feel at further disadvantage.

Everyone wants something for free but someone else to pay for it.

The majority of parents are working, so by designing a policy in their favour and setting up their arch rivals SAHP as the opposition, it is win win for Labour! Enter arch rivals SAHP, whose opposition is now working parents... And we will all fight amongst ourselves!

I hate politics!!!!!!

Thank god for some very perceptive mumsnetters who are raising some amazing points about how it might really work in practice and how the money could be better spent.

We parents should stick together, at the end of the day we all have the same interest at heart, our children. Don't let the politicians pull us apart!!!

The point is though morethan, is that people couldn't hope to do it today. Mortgage rates might be lower now, but they will rise and that scares the hell out of me and house prices are way too high now. I'd rather of bought a house for 40k at 8% interest than buy a house at 250k on 4% interest. It's madness.

Agree woodland

"Nothing has been done to help sahp,nothing."

What help do you need? You get the 15 hours for a 3 year old and hours for a 2 year old if you fit the criteria.

Fat lot of good that is for anybody struggling on one income.

Terrible news for nurseries. Most nurseries lose money for the 15 hours per week. Now they'll be losing money for 25 hours per week. More free hours will lead to fewer free hours as nurseries will have to pull out the scheme.

I lose money providing the 15 hrs and I certainly don't want to lose even more by providing 25 hrs. It's all very well for the government pretending they're funding the spaces, but they're not.

Right, so providing more of it might enable a family on one income to become a family on two incomes, so they stop struggling.

That's what the help is.

It sounds like you don't want help that would enable you to provide for yourself, you'd prefer it to be handed on a plate.

You said you chose to be a SAHP and now you want what....?

Our local playgroup and nursery are rammed full at the moment. I just put ds on a waiting list for April and I haven't been guaranteed that I'll get 15 hours either. I'm not sure how they'll be able to facilitate this in reality. If no one can actually get the hours then no one will benefit

Ihategeorge

I do see your point but it is just the same now as it was then.
Soon tax credits will be gone too. People will only be able to choose to be a sahp if their oh earns enough, just like it was when we first started out.
House prices can be cheap if you look in the right places, maybe not ideal but there are bargains to be had.
First time buyers are struggling to find deposits which are too much, but this as you know is to protect the interests of the lenders, as interest rates can only go up and maybe they anticipate many repos.
The house prices aren't too high imo. The average round here is between 60/80k for a small terrace starter home. This is in line wage wise to what we were paying 20 years ago.

Broken but what if they don't want to be a two income family and what about the other help already being given out to enable 2 working parents?

Candy I already made that clear.

I do think this is a good policy but as some other posters have said I also would prefer to see more childcare help straight after maternity leave, to help women afford to be able to go back to work. I think that is the stage when a lot of women find it just does not pay to work with the huge cost of childcare and that is the stage when many would start to drop out of the workforce because of this. Personally I would find some childcare free hours after maternity leave really beneficial.

Retropear I think that the massive contribution that stay at home parents make is huge and totally unrecognised. I made the suggestion of scrapping CB and replacing with a social wage for stay at home parents in recognition of this fact. I was shouted down "how can we afford that"

Simple, scrap child benefit and only pay the social wage to SAHP for a limited time say 6-7yrs, Progressive taxation and legislation to tackle the low wage economy. If more workers earn a larger share of the wealth or GDP then more money will be taken in tax by the treasury. It is the businesses, share holders, hedge funds, banks, global corporates that are bleeding us dry both in terms of low wages and tax avoidance.

By only paying a benefit for a limited time, a time when it is most beneficial also has the added effect of making it both desirable to go back to work and sensible financially but only when the children are older/in school.

Of course I would ensure that the free 15 oe 25hrs childcare was only available to working parents. No problem with places then.

morethan* house prices round here are about 250 - 300k for an ex local authority 3 bed semi in bad condition. I've been to look at a few and I'm speechless to be honest, especially when the agent says they've already had 3 offers of asking price . We should move maybe, but we can't live where dh works as that's even more expensive, think 500k for 3 bed semi. The dc are happy at school and we are very much part of the local community here. It's just sad that we cannot afford a basic family home round here without an income of 100k.

A starter home here is 200k only those moving out of inner London and commuting can afford to buy here.

So sorting out the north south divide, labour should add that to the list

Morethan - where do you live?? In my street there is a mid terrace two bed on the market for £350,000.

None of them seem to want to do anything about property prices though Elizabeta. Can't think why???!!

A 'social wage' paid to people to do what actually all of us who are parents do... Run a home, bring up children. No, I can't see how that would work at all. And logically why should it just apply to parents? What about people who don't want, or can't have, children, but might feel equally entitled to be paid to do worthwhile things other than employment?

I am all for raising the minimum wage, building more social housing, cutting the ridiculous price of utilities and so on. But ultimately, remuneration for something which is just totally a normal part of life (and not subject to any kind of 'quality control' ) is unworkable