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.

'FREE'!!
That's my problem - it's not free at all in practice. I live in London and although the Council is, in principle, meant to find everyone a 'FREE' place for all 3 year olds, they cannot possibly afford it and the nursery places don't exist anyway. I spoke to my Council this morning (SW London) and they admitted they waited for savvy parents to ask but otherwise kept very quiet. They are looking for a place for my son but admit it is unlikely to be something I would actually want in practice. I have friends who are really struggling to pay nursery fees for 15 hr/wk for their 3 year olds, which are nearly £1000 a term, only slightly reduced by the £3.50/hr subsidy from the government. 'FREE' my A**E!
I wish politicians would wake up and smell reality!
Using their definition, my shopping is 'FREE' because I use discount vouchers and 'two for one' deals ...
All politicians need to get real about childcare and stop talking about something they do not know about or understand.
I'm convinced that until we have a female politician who has had young children in nursery as minister for children/childcare policy we are going to carry on seeing these gimmicky policies.
What do you think?

"It won't only be used to help people who want to work - it will be used to force those who want to be with their children while they are young into work."

Possibly, but then how do you suggest the government help the parents who do want to work? without said help being used to try and force happy SAHP back into work?

" I was with you right up until you disclosed the fact that you take take CB/CTC despite not needing them. Also, let's be clear, the education and childcare are (like the CB/CTC) far from "Free""
I have and do pay into the system and I take what the system gives me if it is useful. Yes I don't "need" CB/CTC but neither do all the people complaining that it has been taken away. Aside from families living entirely off benefits surely everyone who claims benefits of government paid for childcare/education, CB and CTC doesn't need it. I don't need it because I choose to live a frugal lifestyle and manage my money carefully.

And my point about childcare/eduction was exactly what you said - people claiming "free" childcare/education (which I am not) are claiming a benefit and if they were able to afford childcare for the first two or three years of the childs life then they clearly don't need otherwise how did they manage before?

I'm a little concerned that the extra ten hours a week of childcare/early years education would only be given to families where all parents (whether both or lone parent) were in work. I wonder if this would cause further disadvantage to children in poverty whose parents were not in work, as well as putting pressure on lone parents to find work. Also certainly putting pressure on SAHMs to work too. I'd rather see families enabled in making the choices which are right for them.

I'd much rather see this offered as the 15 hours currently are primarily as early years education for all children, and then if parents want to also use the time to enable them to work (so childcare aspect) all well and good.

Well they have stripped sure start from needy families ....

The current government stripped Surestart - this new 25 hours proposal is a potential Labour policy.

What you have highlighted though Juggling is that despite the cries of "children do better at home" not all of them do . Surestart was a life line for many children and parents and I hope it is reinstated.

I agree with pp, the coalition ripped what was good for children in the community, by closing down most of the surestart centres. Atleast labour puts in efforts for the children unlike this lot who seem intent on taking things away.

I would take bonsoirs posts with a large dollop of something

I think this is a great idea but it should be limited to families where both partners work at least part time. Otherwise, surely parents can take care of their children themselves and shouldn't be subsidised by tax money?

The money saved through this limitation could be invested into better provision of primary school places and/or pre-/after-school care for older kids.

juggling - From sept 2013 they have extended the childcare for low income families by offering free 15 hours even if you dont work for 2 year olds.

That's good jasminerose - I think government should be careful though about bringing in anything that treats young children differently depending on their home circumstances, especially where poorer children (those whose parents aren't working) receive less than those from more privileged backgrounds. I think making early years education dependent on family circumstances is undesirable really. Offer the same good provision and increased hours to all.

I think the government overall would prefer most children in childcare at least some of the time, whether the parents work or not. The policies they have brought in and are planning to bring in reflect this

Juggling - statistically the funding makes more difference to poor children (that is, to educational outcomes) so it's better value for money, for want of a better phrase.

A lot of Sure Start centres were closed because they weren't being used by their target audience (the parents with lower academic attainment/income etc) but by those who could afford to go elsewhere.

anaot we need a strong government who is prepared to tackle the whole picture and stop attacking the vulnerable.

This piecemeal approach helps no one and I think people are naive about how hard it is to access some of the things people are referring to - ie free places for 2 year olds

There are loads of 2 free year old places here. Most nurseries are filled with them

And I include the erosion of employment rights in that picture - we are squeezing people back into work (ATOS who should be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter) when the work isn't there.

We allow people to be forced into all sorts of poor employment conditions.

We welcome social engineering and the under valuing of the parental role.

Some applaud the idea of criminalizing those who want to take their children on holiday.

We tax those with room too many - when they can't find smaller homes.

We have a system that fails to recognise shared parenting.

And we fight against each other

People are dying as a result of these policies. Daniel died because core services are totally underfunded not because people didn't care.

And all political parties are equally guilty.

There are none here - when dds playgroup closed down mid year (financial pressure) I Had to put her private because our council says there are enough free places - for all 3 year olds. Except everywhere was full.

The free places for 2 year olds works on postcode. So it doesn't matter what your family circumstance may have become if you live in the wrong place/street and in some cases wrong side of street on same estate you can't have it.

Why not just make all registered childcare completely tax deductable for all parents, and let the free market provide the places ?
That way, there's an incentive for govt to provide state services at a reasonable cost in order to reduce the amount of tax lost.
T'would cost a fortune though.
Tax the banks to pay for it? Indefinitely? Why should they be the sole targets ? They are not the only high revenue firms operating in the UK. It's just populist crap

namechangeforareasonablereason go you,

Can I add something to the list?

I think people are becoming very selfish and they are unable to:

empathise with others
understand anything abstract because it doesn't relate directly to them
complete adherrance to the cult of individuality
totally self-interested
only approve of something when it benefits them, even if it did harm to others.

I blame maggie

I agree that selfishness is a big issue. No wonder the government to get away with absolutely penalising working class people.

I for one am glad if this help towards childcare helps some parents. I couldnt care less if Im not one of those who could benefit. Its so easy to say 'oh the money could be spent on something else'..of course it could. But then if it was something else the response could be 'why cant it be spent on childcare'. It would go on & on.

It really feels as if so many are self-seeking, if something wont directly benefit them they jump up & down. Adamantly dont want others to possibly benefit from anything. Totally self-seeking. Id have been glad of this opportunity when I had 2 under 5s and found working difficult, with 2 sets of nursery fees to pay.

namechange IA about the classic "divide and conquer" government policy, as long as they putting some sections of society against other, people will stay busy infighting for their own little interests and won't take governments to task for failing to tackle the big issues.

that being said, unless a revolution somehow starts in the UK, I don't really see that there is a practical way to improve things, apart from a "piecemeal" approach? It won't solve the bigger issues, certainly, but there's nothing wrong with trying to fix a few things here and there. However imperfectly.

But working parents are already going to be given help by the Tories.

And we're talking £800 million!!!

"But you have chosen to accept money for having had several children. You have quite blatantly expected people to bank roll your choices. The real reason you don't like my idea is that you personally would be worse off. Don't need the money? isnt quite the same as don't desire the money?"

Actually no I haven't - all these people with more money than me who claim they "need" help are the ones who have blatantly expected people to bankroll their choices. All CB/CTB is spent on our children or saved for their future so it is purely going towards them. However before having children, I made sure that should those things be abolished we could manage without them i.e. that we didn't need them. Yes we would make different choices if they weren't available and yes the money enhances my children's lives but they wouldn't starve and we wouldn;t lose the roof over our heads. If you "need" help from the government because you have children regardless of whether this is to enable you to work outside the home or be a SAHP then you are expecting people to bank roll your choices. We are in the second decile for household income so quite why any of the eighty percent of the population above us "need" help from the state is beyond me. I suspect what they mean is "we need help from the state to fund the lifestyle we want to lead" rather than that they genuinely need it and that is my point - if we don't need help from the state then why are other people in such desperate need?

Another side to all of this is the absence of a living wage while the employers make huge profits (eg: Sainsbury, Tesco and other large chains)

Why do we support failed business models with benefits so people can afford to work for them?

The burden on the tax payer is enormous.

If you do the maths, 12% of the top 1% of earners total income (including tax avoidance and evasion) is sufficient to pay every one a living wage, every one wins including the top earners because the economy picks up dramatically.

It seems simple greed and stupidity is stopping us get there, unless there's a darker side to it.

Because this piecemeal approach is then used to beat the vulnerable over the head.

We all agree that for example, those with a disability who want to work should be enabled to - in principle - that is a great idea, did anyone realise, that it would been people with lifelong incurable conditions, being subjected to rigorous meetings etc, or people with terminal cancer being certified as "fit to work" and benefits being stopped.

Did we realise it would lead to the suicide of the most vulnerable??

here one policy feeds the next feeds the next feeds the next feeds the next.

How people cannot see what will come from 25 hours "free" childcare is beyond me.