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.

Anything which helps families bear the horrendous costs of childcare is a positive step. And I speak as someone who's children are almost old enough to not need any childcare any more. We paid every penny of our childcare and won't benefit personally from this, but so what? It's so unpleasantly self-serving to only see policy from what you personally stand to gain.
Paying for pre-school childcare is the most expensive point. Yes yes to more wraparound care too, but at least once the children are in school the bill drops massively compared to pre school.
Anything which can help parents is great- this broadens choices

whose

I'm in Germany now and state childcare for ages 3-6 is maximum 6.5 hours per day, 5 days a week for about £70 per month. The maximum time starts at 7.30, so too early for some jobs, but still - it's vastly better for working part time than the UK nursery provision currently.

To me it is the principle of how society will become if there is even MORE bloody subsidised childcare.
of course a sahp is/will be treated like a second class citizen and looked down on.
There will be comments about lazy sahps as of course there will be no excuse not to be working when the state are paying your childcare.
If you want to work then that is fine, if you don't want to work that is fine. I think when you have dc you live accordingly and nobody has more right to support than anybody else, irrespective of whether you who or sah.

"I find it sad that women are still (in 2013) prepared to sacrifice their financial independence, take on total responsibility for the joint children and undertake all the menial tasks involved in running a house. Thereby allowing a man to continue his life/career exactly as before.. Why would an intelligent adult women do that ? I do not know a single man who would think that was acceptable."

Why is the woman doing all the menial tasks involved in running a house just because she is the SAHP? Personally I don't have time to do them all during working hours in addition to looking after and educating my children. Also, why is a man's life/career going to continue exactly as before? Is he not going to be involved with his children when he is at home? If someone's life carries on exactly the same as before if they go out to work then I would question their suitability as parents as I would expect all parents to spend time with their children regardless of their employment status or whether they are a dual or single income household. When at home my DH does a large portion of the childcare related work (because that is his opportunity to spend time with them since he goes out to work) and also does his fair share of other (menial) tasks. Each to their own but I would rather my children be cared for and educated by me than somebody who is paid to do it and doesn't have the same personal relationship with them and I feel that our family is enriched by me doing so. (This is not a criticism of people working in childcare or as teachers - I have done both myself.) Why would choosing to invest in our family in such a way be unacceptable just because it isn't measured in monetary terms in the form of an income?

Re the cost - I believe they intend to increase the banking levy to pay for it.

wish I think the sweeping generalisation was that the children with a SAHP will be distraut when left with the other parent.

Morethan, aren't you benefiting from subsidised childcare? What with being a SAHM and claiming CTCs?

I've pretty much worked for free for four years so the timing is making me .

That's great bwp. Unfortunately not typical IME. The dps of the SaHM s I know work long hours, barely see the dcs in the week and are exhausted/working from home or on the golf corsets at the WE

The people who talk about SAHP being second class citizens seem to be the SAHP themselves. I haven't seen anyone else saying that. I certainly don't think they are. If a family want one parent to stay home or only work part time then fine. I did it myself when my children were pre schoolers - I only worked a 3 day week. What I (and many others) do disagree with is not a parent choosing to stay at home, it's when they complain about not getting the perks which they perceive working parents to be getting! If you are a SAHP you don't need childcare. Why on earth get het up about the fact that other people are getting help with something you don't need? Blimey what next? Envy for people with a disability who need some sort of extra support?

morethan I agree and you have stated more clearly the point I was originally trying to make - why do dual income parents specifically need/deserve extra help?

golf corse no idea what a golf corset is

I am a SAHM and I think that SAHM are the pinnacle of human achievement and that Western society, of which Western families were the bedrock, have fallen to bits since mothers went out to work FT.

Golf corset?

horry

I sincerely hope that's not what their dps are doing on Saturday s

wish, that is very sad. So in those examples, would the SAHP going out to work mean that the parent already going out to work would then work shorter hours and/or not go off to the golf course at the weekend in order to have a relationship with their children? I don't know many people who are in the scenario you describe and those that are it is a choice by the "working" parent not to build the relationship rather than being caused by one parent staying at home.

(To clarify I mean those that are out of those I know - I'm not generalising.)

morethan We shouldn't encourage people to work (who WANT to work) because it might upset the sensitivities of SAHPs? Well, that is laughable!

This policy is not forcing parents into work but encouraging people who do but feel childcare is not affordable. Not sure why some people are struggling with that!

The issue is that the childcare model in the UK is all about encouraging private for profit chains that are good for the stock market (yes, that's where your money's going, working mothers).

I am a fairy cake lover and I think that fairy cake lovers are the pinnacle of human achievement and that Western society, of which Western small cakes were the bedrock, have fallen to bits since people starting eating fucking cupcakes.

candy

That photo is entirely off topic. It is prepositionally inappropriate. You will note that Wish wrote about people on the golf corsets as opposed to in the golf corsets.

It is another matter of course that the person in the golf corsets is the wrong gender for this discussion.

You need to find a portly middle-aged bloke in rupert the bear trousers standing on golf corsets. It's a toughie but I feel you are up to this challenge.

Candy yes it is insane as labour pointed out.

However only having 1 tax allowance and paying higher tax rate coupled with a big mortgage for a shoe box,a school shoe bill for 3 children at £200, rising food costs,rising petrol etc,etc means those on 1 salary of £50k feel the loss of CB- a lot!