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.

[candycoatedwaterdrops]

As an ex-nursery nurse, I think this is a fab idea. I've seen so many children, who would otherwise have been disadvantaged when they began school (due to SN, complex family life etc), thrive in a nursery setting and it is so beneficial for them. Early years education is not very well regarded but the planning and time that goes into it is quite remarkable.

[Dahlen]

The thing is though, having a SAHP is a choice you can make even if childcare provision is there. Whereas if you want to go back to work and don't have a high-paying job or a high-earning partner, you can't.

I took minimal maternity leave and have used professional childcare all the time (no family). Even though childcare for school-age children is still problematic and expensive, it just does not compare at all to the costs of paying out for for a child of preschool age. I had to forego food and heating to pay my childcare bills when mine were under 4, whereas once they were in school it was more a case of forgetting about holidays, buying budget brands rather than more expensive ones, etc.

4-5 years is a long time to be stuck at home because you can't afford childcare when you really want to work or living on the breadline like that if you decide to do it anyway.

[NoComet]

Jedward it treats SAHPs as second had citizens, because there is a patronising, unpleasent, lecturing tone in the way governments go on about helping hard working families which is totally hypocritical.

What the actually mean is, get ye to work! Then we can tax you, your DH and the (massively underpaid) woman providing you child care!

No acknowledgement at all of the massive amount of Tax DH already pays them, no adjustment for higher rate tax or CB on house hold income grounds. No simply a constant, unless drip drip drip of go back to work, go back to work.

Well actually, dear government, I'd quite like to, but it's not that simple.

[NoComet]

Relentless drip drip

[lainiekazan]

I just think there needs to be more to incentivise people (women) to work than some free childcare.

I was in The Works the other day and heard a woman come in about a job. The applicant was being rather belligerent saying that she would not work more than X hours because of her benefits. Apart from the fact that she sounded rude and entitled, you can't blame the woman because she was making an economic decision.

[utreas]

YANBU Standard pre-election bribe to try and gain votes, best illustrated by it being funded by higher taxes on banks.

[Tanith]

This isn't a new proposal - Labour's planned increase to 10 free sessions was one of the first things scrapped by the Coalition. 25 free hours is actually a cutdown from that, so I don't know where the accusations of vote-chasing come from.

It sounds good and I'd support it. My only concern is the funding. At the moment childcarers offering the free entitlement are forced to subsidise it because the funding isn't enough and it's not all passed on by the LAs.

We're struggling to provide the free places now: increasing the hours and not the funding will see a lot of settings either refuse to offer it or go out of business.

[RobotHamster]

" I'm stuck being a SAHM because I've been out of work too long."

Maybe if there had been better, more affordable childcare then this kind of situation wouldn't be so common - women able to go back to work sooner, and wouldn't be in the situation you are now? Not saying this necessarily applies to you because everybody has a different reason for being a SAHP, but for parents who want to work and can't because childcare is so expensive, this will be a massive help.

[RobotHamster]

Agree about before and after school provision for older children though. We're fine at the moment, but once DS gets to 8 or 9 I'm not sure what the options are around here for after school care

Nurseries are available (while expensive) there is the option there, and it's usually a relatively short-term expense, while I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with DS between 8 and 12yo? What about after that?

[JemR234]

Labour have also pledged guaranteed access to wraparound childcare for primary schoolchildren - from 8am to 6pm.

[rollmeover]

Im a SAHM and I think its a great idea - it wouldnt make me go back to work but I certainly dont begrudge others who want to/need to work and are paying through the nose for childcare being helped by the system (as long as they dont take the current free hours off me ;)

[ShadeofViolet]

Where will these places come from?

I am the chairperson of a playgroup. In our area, we have many parents who are the target of the 2 year funding, but there are not enough places available. Instead, the LA have been giving out grants for current providers to extend premises and provision to attract these 2 year olds. Many playgroups are only open in the mornings. Government see it as a way of cutting services elsewhere. For example they now want preschools to complete the two year checks, so in time there will be less need for trained HV.

This will help to line the pockets of day nurseries.

[DuckToWater]

I think it's a great idea - this and free school meals. Although it means the better off get the benefit as well, things that are not means tested save vast amounts of money in administration costs. And the vast majority of parents (about 90/95%) do not fall into high income levels so it does benefit most children.

As for the argument as to why everyone should pay for children, in that case why should I pay for pensioners? Who use up the vast majority of the welfare budget in their state pensions, get free bus passes, fuel allowances and also account for most of the NHS budget? Plus the fact they benefitted from free education including university.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, of course we should all contribute to society and help one another.

[BeCool]

"If you choose to have children then you should pay to look after them."

Have you ever stopped to think about what would happen to your world/society if people stopped having children? Society and life as we know it needs children - it's is a much much bigger picture than "if you can't afford them don't have them".

[Bonsoir]

I have no problem with all DC of 3 and 4 getting 25 hours of free education a week. Childcare? No thanks.

[magicberry]

"Labour have also pledged guaranteed access to wraparound childcare for primary schoolchildren - from 8am to 6pm."
I'd like to know where all the jobs are going to come from that make it worth leaving your child in school 50 hours a week. Because I can't think of many.

[enjoyingscience]

I think this is a great idea. We have spaced our family to avoid having two in FT childcare at the same time - I need to work full time (due to my income far exceeding my DP's, his job being too unpredicatable for him to work PT, my career stage, undertaking an MSc paid for my work etc etc - a million reasons. Oh, and actually I really love my job!).

This does not denegrate the role of SAHPs, but does support those for whom it is not an option. SAHPs would be able to use the sessions too surely, so it's not a disadvantage for their child if they choose to take them, but it is a huge advatage for parents who have to/choose to work.

This kind of initiative would have allowed us to have DC2 a little earlier, I think (currently cooking him/her at the minute).

[lainiekazan]

Agree, Bonsoir.

The before/after school club at dd's school offers the stimulating entertainment of a dvd recorder with second-rate Disney film on a loop or a few colouring sheets. Those with energy to burn off scuffle in a heap in the middle of the hall floor.

When dd has had to attend on a handful of occasions I have found her sitting hunched on her coat in a corner looking mighty grumpy.

This school really struggles to find staff for the before/after school club. They are always advertising. And those they do find do not seem energetic or inspirational.

[JemR234]

Well access to wraparound childcare from 8am to 6pm doesn't mean you have to use it in full - it just broadens your options. Because even working part time there are not all that many jobs that fit around school hours at either end of the day.

[musicalfamily]

I would generally vote for a government that puts education, childcare and health at the heart of their agenda at the moment.

This is a bit of a vote spinner and only tackling such a minute part of the problem. I am in favour but I would not vote someone in on the back of it because I think it needs much more serious reform than just throwing in a few hours for 1 year. I also think school places is a huge issue that no government seem to want to think about, shame on them.

[enjoyingscience]

magic - 'access to' is different from 'must use'. For instance, I do all drops offs in the morning, but use after school club. Another parent would do the opposite, meaning access to care for the school is required from 8am-6pm. Also, I might only need it three days a week, another parent might need it the other two.

[ReallyTired]

"Have you ever stopped to think about what would happen to your world/society if people stopped having children? Society and life as we know it needs children - it's is a much much bigger picture than "if you can't afford them don't have them"."

The world population is 7 billion. The human race is not in any danger of extinction. Frankly we need more population control across the world rather than less.

[maddymoo25]

Would be 100 percent for it !!!!

[ReallyTired]

"Have you ever stopped to think about what would happen to your world/society if people stopped having children? Society and life as we know it needs children - it's is a much much bigger picture than "if you can't afford them don't have them"."

The world population is 7 billion. The human race is not in any danger of extinction. Frankly we need more population control across the world rather than less.

[HappyMummyOfOne]

Not a labour voter but its not their worst proposal and it begrudges me to say that.

I agree that parents should fund all their childrens costs be it childcare or food etc. However there are many that dont and see it as their right to have children regardless of who will be funding that choice. Children are a lifestyle choice, nobody is made to have them and contraception is freely available.

If we have to subsidise anything, it should be childcare. Far better to pay towards that for working parents than just to throw tax credits at people working or not. Scrap everything child related bar childcare assistance and people know if they have children that their budget needs to support that both now and should their circumstances change.

Those that want to stay home and not work can, providing their household income supports that choice, and those that work get a little support and pay taxes, the childcare provider pays taxes and eventually childcare wont be needed and the tax system will gain more.

However, i cant see labour getting rid or getting tough on the benefit system and believe the Tories will get through the next election. At least they believe in getting people to self support rather than relying on the state which can only improve things for future generations.