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.

I think population control on a global scale, and the challenge of society supporting the education and welfare of young people on a local scale in the UK are quite different issues.

In our country, a large ageing population is a huge risk - we need an active and skilled workforce (of young people and their working age parents) to support the retired/elderly/increasingly ill ageing population.

I think that it's a great help to try to get people to work where they couldn't with 15 hours. As a working Mum this will really help with the finances.

I am in favour. Child care is so expensive, people need help to stay in work.

Many other European countries offer free pre school, and it is viewed as both education and an active help for working parents.

My dc has hugely benefitted from going to nursery school (in Italy) and it certainly hasn't undermined our parental role.

The trouble with population control is that everyone always thinks it is other people who should stop having children, not them.

For all those saying that Labour should focus on childcare for primary aged children, they have already stated that they will offer parents of primary school children guaranteed access to childcare from 8am to 6pm. So this isn't an either or scenario. I approve of it.

I agree though that we have a shortage of primary school places, the only solution to this would be to build more primary schools. I think personally whilst they are about it, they might like to build schools that can provide pre-school and nursery on site. Rather than LA and parents shovelling money into the private sector, I would prefer public tax payers money be spent on public provision. If public tax funded provision is good enough from 4-18 its good enough from 3 years.

It sounds great, but how are they going to fund it? They will probably tax me more, so as a family we won't benefit overall.

25 hours free childcare would be bloody brilliant. Wraparound care before and after school would be a god sent! It is so tough for both parents to work with pre-school aged DCs when you have to pay £60.00 per day per child. We will definitely vote labour if they can promise this without changing the staff children ratio that is!

Getting women into work, thus paying more tax, has always been a central plank of Labour policy. At least this is a proper commitment. However the need for affordable childcare does not disappear when the child starts school. In fact, for many, the need is more acute as school start and end times are non-negotiable.

Personally, I feel that the need of the child should be the priority. I do need believe that very young children need to be spending vast amounts of time in institutionalised education where there are few benefits. I think small children are far better off at home at this age.

I would prefer to see the money spent on developing a sound economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn money and pay tax in good quality work. We need to create apprenticeships and end the scandal of the zero hours contract.

This is a cheap vote-winner, in my opinion.

Shadeofviolet, I'm guessing the places will come from childminders.

They've recently opened up the funding so that childminders with a good or outstanding grade can access it, regardless of whether they are in a Network. Up until now, only childminders were restricted in this way, so more places have been immediately created.

Whether they will want to claim it once they realise how much work and money it could cost them remains to be seen

I would much rather the money was spent ensuring disabled people could keep their benefits so you know, they could eat and heat their houses just a little bit, but no-one seems to care about that!

its just for working parents isnt it?i think its a good idea,im a sahm and i dont want to work but i think its good for those that do.

" would much rather the money was spent ensuring disabled people could keep their benefits so you know, they could eat and heat their houses just a little bit, but no-one seems to care about that!"

100% agree. I would also like familes with disabled people to have access to respite. A family with severely disabled child would not be able to send their child to nursery for 25 hours a week because they would not be able to afford the necessary one to one support.

I feel that labour have a lot of empty promises.

The 15 hours people get at the moment is not enough to be able to go out to work. It makes more financial sense to mothers and to the government to give 25hrs as it gives them the abiltity to earn money and not recieve jobseekers or income support.

With so many places only offering mw in my area i'm pleased with this proposal should labour win the election as it will give me the time and money to go back to work when my unborn baby turns 3. I won't be able to afford childcare on mw and my dh works too so he cannot have the children as he works different hours each week.

Why does the debate around working families always centre around childcare provision? I would rather the money was invested in promoting flexible working arrangements, shift working & working from home that would allow people to fully balance work & homelife.

When I had my DC I took a massive pay cut and went part time mainly so I could be at home for my kids more & when they started nursery they didn't have to do full time hours. I know this isn't an option for some people but I think most would welcome a bit more balance?

I thought the point of preschool funding was partly to get mothers parents back into work, but also because good Early Years provision reduces the attainment gap between the least and and most advantaged children.

If EY is so beneficial, then extending the funding to all 2yos, rather than just those in the target and pilot areas, would surely have more of an impact than increasing the sessions for those children already eligible?

f this is about keeping women in work then I'd like to see some funding for c/care and early years education for children aged 1-3.

The cost of childcare makes it so hard for mothers to go back after MAT leave. If the mother then gives up work due to c/care costs they will have been out of the workplace for 3 or 4 years by the time they get the 15 funded hours. Many employers will not employ a person who has been out of the workplace for that length of time and the mother may well have lost her (work) confidence.

Surely it would be better to offer some support before the child is 3?

I pay breakfast and a/school club for DS (6) and 3 full days nursery for DS2 (1) and this just about takes up all my wages. I am doing it because I like working and do not want to give up on my career. I know I will get 15/25 hours funding for DS2 when he reaches 3.5 but this is a loooooooooong way off.

I would rather have say 10 hours free childcare now plus 15 hours at 3.5 rather than nothing now and 25 hours when he turns 3.

It's not a "cheap vote winner". It's the norm in the rest of Europe.

I'm being forced to listen to Jeremy Vine at work and there are loads of callers phoning in with the usual:

"If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them!"

and

"Why should I pay for other people's children?"

and

"Mothers should stay home with their children anyway!"

While on here, there's the usual: " This is just a way to force SAHMs into work!".

What all these people fail to realise is that:

a) these "kids that people can't afford" will be paying their pensions and wiping their arses when they're old.

b) people (mostly women) who are enabled to go back to work through this initiative will most likely, through long-term increased earning potential, pay back way more into the system than they take out

c) no-one is forcing SAHMs to do anything unless they want to.

I do see the arguments that money desperately needs to be spent on school places, and also on caring for the disabled/vulnerable (particularly enabling them to work if they are properly able (not "Atos able"). But where has Labour said that this will be their one and only policy? It's just one change, hopefully among many.

They've also said they will ensure better wrap-around care.

Aside from creating jobs and forcing every employer to pay a living wage, enabling parents to get back out to work without having to worry about extortionate childcare costs is one of the best ways I can think of to get the economy moving.

"I would rather the money was invested in promoting flexible working arrangements, shift working & working from home that would allow people to fully balance work & homelife."

That's bonkers. This policy would ensure fairer access to early years education and support working parents. Many many jobs cannot be worked from home and many people would hate to work shifts.

lol at having to travel 2 miles to school. 2 miles is nothing.

Plus, as others have said, we're way behind the rest of Europe in the provision of quality State-funded, affordable childcare. Other countries see the benefit of enabling parents to work, I cannot fathom why there is always so much resistance here. I mean, it will benefit most people at some stage of their lives, and should benefit everyone in the long term as the national economy is more stable with parents (esp women) able to keep their careers on track without long breaks.

YANBU. I would also prefer to see the finds go into the education system rather than childcare.
I am fed up that governments see no benefit in a parent staying at home to raise their children. At home mothers / fathers are invisible in this society because we don't directly pay tax. It is rubbish.

If you are working then you can afford to pay for childcare.

"lol at having to travel 2 miles to school. 2 miles is nothing."

2 miles is not nothing if you are four year old and your parents don't own a car. It is scandelous when there are 4 primaries within a one mile radius. Surely for the sake of the enviroment children should be allocated a primary close to their house.

"a) these "kids that people can't afford" will be paying their pensions and wiping their arses when they're old."

I am sure we can import immigrants to wipe our arses and pay for our state pensions when we are older. (Like we do now! British kids often regard low paid care work as beneath them!)