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 it is a great idea! I just wish it comes in and labour comes into government before my LO gets to that age!

Everyone, please vote for labour :)

lachrymavitis - what would you like the government to do about SAHPs? What costs do they have that they need help with? This isn't "free money" being given to working parents, at the end of the day it's a subsidy to help them with the extra costs they incur while being economically active. Plus, SAHPs also get these (currently) 15 or (future) 25 free hours.

So please, SAHPs, explain to me why you wail and moan that you're being neglected whenever working parents get a break that irrelevant to you?

I don't complain that I'm being "left out" or seen as invisible when other people get housing benefit or JSA, because it isn't relevant to me and I don't need it.

What on earth does it have to do with you if parents who need help with childcare costs actually get that help?

I agree Annie.

I don't work full time. I don't feel at all that by funding early years education the government is disrespecting my role as a parent.
Most children, even those with perfect sahparents, hugely benefit from good quality pre schools, where they experience diversity and new relationships and new games and different approaches to learning.

The disability argument above is a bit of a non-starter. Many children are disabled - targeted help for them at early years will be a godsend. Mahy parents are also disabled and will feel this move offers practical support.

Because it is seen as education, here in Italy nursery schools are free also for the children with sahp.

Also and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in the news coverage - is it 25 weeks each week, or 25 weeks in school terms?

These 25 hours are childcare not education. And available to families where all parents are working that is the difference.

15 hours education for all kids, extra 10 in childcare for those with working parents which I think is fair.

Tho waiting for the sahp to come on claiming its unfair on them. Remember the one on the tv at the last proposal?

Free, universal FT (eg 25 hours or thereabouts) nursery education from 3 will soon be the Western norm. That's the way the world is going - this is hardly a revolution, providing it is education in classrooms, with teachers, and not childcare.

I'm with SoVeryLucky.
youngest DS will get free meals in yr2 (if he eats them). That's extent of our benefit from recent announcements.

I think it's a good idea, after I have another dc it will be pointless me returning to work with the price of two children. I think it gets people back into work which would help the economy.

However, it is spending money to solve a problem which could be solved by simply lowering the cost of childcare. That would have the same results at a cheaper rate.

holidays, there's been one already.

Sahp have explained several times before how they're struggling on one salary often on less money yet they pay more tax on equivalent household income and lose more CB.

I would like CB cuts to be on joint income so sahp aren't penalised and I'd like couples with a sahp to be able to have the same double tax threshold.

I also think all help with childcare should be limited to two children and means tested on joint household income.

Just why should the tax payer or anybody else fund childcare and school meals for those that choose to have 3,4 or 5 kids and who are more than capable of paying for their children themselves?Plenty of families stick at 2 in order to be prudent,why should they fund those that have 3 or 4 kids then moan how much childcare is?

To all those saying they would rather see the money go to "education", rather than "childcare":

All childcare settings MUST follow the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). This already applies to all nurseries, preschools and childminders.

The EYFS is very play based, but there are clear guidelines for planning educational activities and assessing children's learning and general development. Childminders do this as well as nurseries and preschools.

So - for children this age, more "childcare" is (or should be) exactly the same thing as the excellent play-based education currently available in the best schools.

(unless of course, you want your children hot-housed and reading flashcards etc. at the age of 2 years old... and no decent school will do that any more because it has been proven time and time again that children learn much better through carefully managed play at this age - hence the requirement fr all settings to follow the EYFS.)

Is a dream come true for me. Could get meaningful lower waged work that means I wouldn't be operating at a loss, would be contributing towards taxes, would not be cuntlodging [shurely the female eqiv of cocklodging] off new partner making him responsible for DC childcare costs as higher earner, less of a career gap, less risk of not being able to get back to work after maternity.

candy its not completely bonkers, the long hours, presenteeism culture we have at the moment is not conducive to a happy home life, there's lots of research knocking about that if workers can achieve a better work life balance they are happier in their jobs & more productive.

I'm also not convinced that extra childcare for 3 year olds is necessarily best for them either. A way in which parents can earn enough to live on with the ability to spend more time with their children, especially in the early years is surely the ideal?

Well said AnnieLobeseder. There were plenty of similar comments on the R5 Live phone in this morning - luckily I was in a position where I could switch off the radio .

This policy is designed to support working parents. There is no need for stay at home parents to have 25 hrs of childcare per week, although it would mean that many of them who want to work now can. Why do people say it's punishing SAHPs? How does it make them any worse off? Any increase in tax expenditure comes from everyone who pays tax - and by enabling more parents to go out to work, the tax take will rise - why is this so difficult to understand?

If you want to and can afford to stay at home - great! You can still access 15 hrs of free childcare to give you a break and improve your children's life chances. And if you want to make it financially easier, why not start shouting about a transferrable tax allowance, so your partner can claim your unused tax allowance and earn another approx £10K a year tax free? That would be much more equitable than slapping down people who need or want to go out to work.

Retropear - well, I could make the argument that staying at home is a luxury, and why should my tax money fund another parent's choice to stay home if they can't afford to? Much the same argument as people not wanting to "fund" childcare.

But at the end of the day, while the proposals you make about CB and tax breaks are fair, they have no relevance to this policy.

So it seems pointless to me to object to one policy simply because you favour another, when there's absolutely no reason why both couldn't be put in place. It's not either/or.

And, even though I am a SAHM by choice, I am hugely in favour of increasing the number of childcare hours available. I see lots of parents who are unable to work, trapped in poverty and unable to make improvements to the family budget or lifestyle because they can't afford the childcare costs.

And to those of you who say people who can't afford childcare costs shouldn't have children... I suppose you are all either SAHMs with high-earning partners or high-earning folk with secure jobs yourselves. Plese try to imagine what life might be like for other folk. Some of you are dangerously near to saying that the poor aren't fit to have children... (I seem to remember reading that Hitler had the same idea!)

Brilliant change actually. Pretty much all the others (CB) have fucked me, so school dinners and this combined would make an enormous ability to my work capability. Because I want to work, and I want that sacrifice to pay. Wasn't there a study that said if all women worked growth wou,d massively accelerate recently? Is this not a sensible the only remaining way way out of recession! We cant cut back anymore therfore must make more money!

annie oops there wasn't when I started that post but got disrupted before pressing post!!

I love the sahp brigade who tell me that they should x and y because they struggle on one wage. Well this time they have a choice, they get a job they'll get this benefit.

If they refuse (as they are free to do) then they are making the choice to stay at home and thus struggle. That is their choice and not everyone else's repsonsibility.

Great post, greenbananas and I want to vote for wordsmith

lachrymavitis The problem for many families seems to be that two wages are needed where once one would have sufficed. For many the choice is work for nothing after paying childcare or not to work. I couldn't afford to work and I couldn't afford not to.

Labour have also said they are going to tackle the problems of the low wage economy by increasing the NMW and tackling zero hrs contracts.

It seems to me:

If you accept that some pre-school care/education is beneficial to children when this takes place in a socialised setting then it follows that provision for this should be made available because it is good for children.

If you believe in trying to strike a balance btw home and work, family and material necessity then it would follow that we need more people working, even better more able to work fewer hrs.

If you think that men should be more involved in childcare and it shouldn't just fall on women to do all of it, then it would follow that we need to create the conditions in which women can work.

There are two ways of socialising both the care of the elderly, domestic work and childcare

1. through progressive taxation and allocation of free childcare, state provided care for the elderly etc, freeing women to work for wages and pay tax.

2. up the minimum wage to a rate that would support a family on one wage (much as it was btw 1948-1970) and women stay home and undertake this unpaid but still subsided work. For it was still subsidised because the actual family income allowed her to do this unpaid work.

The fact is though, the reason we are even in this cost of living/childcare predicament is because the private sector wanted two workers for the price of one, this increased corporate profits. I think women think that they should be back slapping each other for the great advancement of women's rights, nah we only won our right to work because of the economic conditions prevalent at that time and because women could be paid less. If women had held their nerve in the first place by demanding : wages for housework/childcare & the same wage rates as their male counterparts, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Money from my taxes goes to fund all sorts of things, doesn't it? I don't drive, and yet, my taxes are also used to maintain roads etc. So, the argument against funding childcare because there are people who don't have children, well, ...

I agree, with "education" I meant learning through play etc

They are relevant Annie as working parents have justified the unfairness re CB and tax as they pay childcare well that is fine but if that help was to be increased even more then sorry there is no justification for the unfairness and if all are to be on a level playing field then they need to be sorted otherwise families with a sahp are going to be far worse off and many who want to have one just won't be able to.

My dp funds me staying at home thanks,not the taxpayer.We saved in order for us to do it on just at the time on a teacher's salary and the IT equivalent giving up holidays etc to do so.You know families planning to go back to work could do the same.I support my dp in stressful job and my family benefit from my being at home.

It's not about stopping people from having children but being realistic.We don't as a country have the money to fund people having unlimited children(I think CB should stop at to too and I have 3,twins) and why should we?