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.

That's great Lalunya - I've rarely had such success with a post of mine

• Interesting to hear of your experience in your home country. I'm curious as to which one it is ?!

Well - it was a bit of a stretch to say that I was from one of the countries you mentioned [shame]: Germany. Things are a lot easier there for families with kids, not just for those with toddlers but also later on in terms of free school education and free (or very cheap) university education.

I'm expecting my first child in January and was quite shocked to find out about maternity leave etc. in the UK. Clearly the whole area of childcare and education in the UK is in need of reform, so it's great to have debates and proposals like this from other parties - even if, of course, it's all very populist and not necessarily the best way forward.

and i clearly havent got the forum smileys and jargon figures out yet!

BadlyWrittenPoem Tue 24-Sep-13 14:59:41
"ELT but why do they need to work? Are you seriously saying that lots of people can't afford to feed, clothe etc their children without both a dual income and subsidised childcare? Children would actually be starving if either one parent stayed at home or the government didn't subsidise their childcare to enable them to both go out to work?"

Yes I am one of those people who without a dual income could not afford to care for my children. We. could. not. do. it.

Many other posters have been saying this on this thread......what is difficult to understand about this simple fact? To live in the UK today, for many people it is not possible without a dual income.

We bought a house because it is cheaper than renting...so now the less well off amongst us are being priced out of the housing market, rental market, no social housing availbility and those in social housing have now been additionally taxed.

I have said the same thing all along. If one of us could afford not to work one of us would be a SAHP. We would like nothing more, sadly we both have to work.

weemee badlywrittenpoem how could anyone possibly doubt that there are loads of families who couldn't survive on a single income? Both my husband and I have relatively good salaries (nowhere near 40,000, but good enough), and we certainly couldnt live off let alone raise a child just one of our incomes.
We are renting in London, and at rip-off prices, like everyone else. We don't have the money for a deposit, otherwise we would try to cut costs by switching to mortgage payments - there must be plenty of families in the same position.

I'm not complaining - I'm ok with going to work once my child is born, I even want to go back to work as I enjoy it, even if it will have to be part time for a while. But let's not pretend that this is a real "choice" for most people.

I want to see policies which enable couples to achieve a good balance in their lives, while at the same time acknowledging that there will always be some couples who are comfortable with taking on quite differing roles as parents.

I honestly think that in this day and age, what many many women and men want isn't hugely different.

I have a teenage dd and ds. When I talk to them about how they see their future the one recurring theme is that they certainly don't see themselves as taking on polarised roles because of their gender. My dd doesn't assume that she will have a less interesting or worthwhile career than her husband. My ds doesn't assume that he will be expected to be some high flying jet setter with sole earning responsibly. These things just don't even occur to them! They both talk about having children (albeit in a far in the distance way!) and it's clear that both expect to be hands on parents who are equally capable of childcare.

I suspect that this is a natural progression and I hope that policies become more and more geared towards treating both parents equally. Things like shared parental leave are a massive step forward.

To my mind its not about forcing people into work (though of course working is a fact of life ) it's actually far simpler than that: it's about acknowledging that men and women are not vastly different, certainly not in terms of their skills and personal qualities and actually many of us want the same things out of life: a happy harmonious life with a good balance of work, leisure and family time

Lalunya I agree with you not badlywrittenpoem!

The shared responsibility model works very well for middle ranking jobs with few professional responsibilities. As soon as one partner takes on a role with significant responsibility at work, it is much harder to enact. The world cannot turn on worker bees alone.

I agree that how children see their future is the same regardless of gender, however I think that comes from a certain, I dont know what the right word is.

I have a lot of friends, lots of whom had high flying careers, but a lot of them have given up work, because they wanted to.

But I do believe there are differences between how men and women are biologically programmed, I had a great career, I hated missing my eldest growing up and was determined not to do it this time around.

Fact is women get pregnant, women carry babies and women breast feed, and biological programming has to have some impact.

That doesn't mean women can't perform in the work place, can't be as effective as men, but I do think there is a higher cost to women and not just because of social conditioning.

weemee I know, I got that. Just wanted to draw your attention to the post as it was in response/support of yours.

Ah good thought it maybe didn't read how I meant it

I can't believe that seemingly intelligent adults can't realise that just because they can afford to have only one salary coming in, that other people cannot.

namechangeforareasonablereason >however I think that comes from a certain, I dont know what the right word is

were you looking for the word feminism?

Yep that old nonsense about women wanting equality and not being bound by biology to be treated unequally

"Now, SAHPs lose CB, while working parents don't"

Mmm, i thought it was HR tax payers who were losing CB, regardless of whether their spouse works or not. It has nothing at all to do with SAHPs but a tax policy. It should have been scrapped for all but linking to the tax system was a cost effective way of doing it.

Workers with children likely need childcare so it is a cost if working, lots of things can be deducted as a business expense so why not childcare. I dont need a uniform but dont begrudge others if they get a little tax back.

Far better for political parties to be seen to be encouraging people to work than throwing money at people for doing nothing. Whilst it may have gained them votes in the past its been made quite clear that many wanted radical changes in the benefit system to stop people choosing not to work at the cost of tax payers.

In an ideal world we would just scrap all child related benefits, tax credits etc and just have one higher personal allowance. That way people know they need to be responsible re the number of children they have, people cant manipulate hours to gain more in benefits and if you choose not to work then thats fine as it will be down to self funding. No fraud, nobody being treated differently and easy to administer.

I consider myself to be a feminist, but I am somewhat older than the average parent.

Plus I have "had it all", if you like and as a parent with a 14 year gap between oldest 2 DCs, all I regret is all those years where I spent most of my childs life in work, dropping him off to breakfast club, picking him up from after school club, only really seeing him on weekends.

To the point where I would never do it again. I did not regret it at the time, I thought I was providing him with an excellent role model and I was working to provide the good things in life and when I became a single parent to pay the mortgage (with good maint and support from exh).

I did what I thought was best at that point in time, but for me now he is grown up - I can say in hindsight it wasn't.

I did not say women weren't equal, but that does not mean we cannot recognise something fundamental.

I have yet to see a man want to give up a high flying career, and I am talking here want not pressure, but I have seen many a friend not be able to bear it in reality because simply put, they wanted to spend more time with their children.

I went through my years when I thought people who thought like that were boring and old fashioned, out of touch with modern thinking, wanted to be chained to kitchen sink.

I just feel I have learned more than that and I am not "afraid" to acknowledge the difference.

Women are just as good as men in the workplace, men are just as good at childcare as women if they want to be. But to deny there is a difference, well that is just daft.

plus Elizabeth where at all did I say it was OK to be treated unequally, I said I believed there were differences.

Bonsoir, what about happiness and fulfilment.? Both partners' phycical and mental health.In the polarised situation you describe I would suggest the partner WOTH doesn't have time to exercise, relax and enjoy being with thier children. Whilst in the early years the SAHP has an increased risk of depression .

Someone sounds like a bored Parisian housewife

namechangeforareasonablereason you didn't. I was making the point that biological differences are few. I agree we with you that women probably have a "biological urge" to be more involved and spend time with their children because they carry, give birth and feed. I did. But I do think overstating biological differences can lead to a situation where we make sweeping generalisations about what all women want, should want and should do. If you assume that all mothers want nothing more than to be 24hr cafes and entertainment to small children, that this is "natural" then any women choosing to work could be deemed a freak of nature. That would suit UKIP I guess

"Now, SAHPs lose CB, while working parents don't."

SAHPs only lose all the child benefit if their spouse is on £60K and WOHP will lose if their income is £60K, so that's untrue.

Whereas (and apologize for stating the bleeding obvious).If you both WOTH a bit and do some childcare, both partners are likely to have more time and energy to peruse the things that give them fulfilment and keep relatively fit and healthy. As well as having a better understanding of each other's roles.

I was 28, Dh 29 when I had Ds, when he is 16 I will be 44, plenty of time to rule the world then.

Well Candy seeing posters demand yet more when they have free 2 year old education,CB,free school dinners, childcare help coming in from this gov,2 tax thresholds and 2 healthy wages is pretty sickening to watch to be frank.

Just wow! The sense of entitlement.

"Now SAHP's lose CB while working parents don't"

Totally inaccurate. I am a working parent and I have lost CB. I'd prefer not to (wouldn't we all) but I can see that in the greater scheme of things there are other far more deserving causes. If I give up my job and stayed at home I also wouldn't get CB - it's not directly linked to whether Someone is a SAHP at all.

As someone said on a thread a while back: if a SAHP thinks its fair that her partner is taxed as if they are both earning that 60k, do they agree that two working parents should each be allowed to each treat their salary as if its earned by two people? Thought not!

Retropear the only bit of that which applies to me is CB. I just believe that parents should be supported to stay in the work force. My 2 are far too old to benefit from any of these changes and I do think the cb rules are unfair,(particlarly for single parents) but not sure what would be fairer. I think something like 60k single income in 2 parent household 80k for single parents or dual income.