To think this misses the point about costs of childcare?

[adsy]

"Critics have complained that homes where one parent stays at home to look after children will not benefit."

This is in response to the new scheme where parents will get 20% of childcare costs paid for by the government.
I'm a CM and all for subsidies of any sort to help out parents, but other than the odd day when you might need to go for an interview etc. I can't see why a stay at home parent needs to get childcare subsidies or am I missing a major point here?!

The thing that has really had me scratching my head Beyond is the much vaunted 'Big Society'. What happened to that idea? Who is going to have the time anyway?

One SAHM and two SAHDs are the informal tiny 'Big Society' in my road.

Totally disagree. I live in Australia where 50% of childcare is paid by the government with NO means testing. Although, only if both parents are in work, study or voluntary work.

I have 3 DC and genuinely need a break from the youngest 1 day per week while I do things for my older 2 at school, get jobs done that can't be done with a 14 month old in tow and I have no friends/family support so would have absolutely not a minute to do anything without my baby unless I pay for childcare.

Why are my needs de-valued as opposed to a mum who goes out to work for the benefit of her mental health and reaps the rewards of subsidised childcare? If the government are subsidising, it should be for all.

Just because I am a SAHM doesn't mean we are minted and can easily afford my DD's one day per week in nursery.

I'm Australian too but most mothers are not going out to work for their mental health ... more like financial health. The government's POV is they are contributing taxes whereas a SAHM is not. Their main incentive in providing assistance is to increase the tax coffers. As we've seen though, it just meant that prices went up massively and parents are paying as much as ever.

What do you think WOHP do Mutley?

They do the jobs when not at work, when they have their children with them.

They also don't get to 'help at school' because they are at work.

Arse The Big Society idea became unworkable when the Coalition government savagely cut local authority budgets whilst at the same time introduced a raft of punitive welfare reforms. IMO of course.

I'm getting all confused about being a PT/FT SAHP and ML.

Surely you're are only on ML if you are employed. If you are a SAHP, you are not employed. Ergo, you can't be a SAHP pm ML (even if at that point in time you are not working), because you are, essentially, employed?

I still think there should be some financial recompense for SAHP who have had to leave their jobs because CC costs are disproportionate to their income.

And regarding childcare for unemployed attending interviews etc - why not? It's recognised that unemployed need support if they want to train (creche places allocated at Children's Centres for instance).

so you can reed and rite good like what i can

Arse The Big Society idea became unworkable

I'll have to take your word for it, I didn't understand the point of it all in the first place

so you can reed and rite good like what i can

Ha

The Big Society was about individuals and non governmental initiatives though. It wasn't well expressed but it shouldn't have been affected by the local government cuts as it was meant to exist outside this structure. However the conservatives never really explained what it was and what it would do.

And Curly you want people to be paid to look after their children

The Big Society was about individuals and non governmental initiatives though.

Exactly, so why was the PM trying to dictate it, shape it, take credit for it?

Because it was his 'Big' idea which he completely failed to articulate. It's a very libertarian (read conservative) concept that the state should step back and let individuals step in.

It's a very libertarian (read conservative) concept that the state should step back and let individuals step in.

Of course. He stepped over the line and started dabbling on the side of that equation that, by definition, shouldn't concern a Tory, though. Strange bit of populist spin. A soundbite, really, that they tried to inflate.

Well quite. They haven't hugged many hoodies either have they. 'tis the bollocks which passed for modern politics.

Ah 'hug a hoodie', I'd forgotten that. Did he have a brainstorm that day? Who was advising him?

CallmeDave used the Big Society idea as a means to cut services and heft the blame onto us.[hmm

Ie get rid of librarians,offer them the chance to do their jobs for nothing because they are just such nice community minded people(with no need for a roof over their heads or food)
Oh no takers well the library will have to close then.
I fucking hate them any way but I will never forgive them for closing our libraries.
[Rage emoticon]

Yes, I forgot that part of it soap. All with such a concerned expression on his irritating face.

We do have a library being kept a float by volunteers (mix of retirees, SAHPs and students) not far from here, but it is a breathtaking pisstake that it is so.

afloat

What I can't understand is why the govt "paying people to look after their own children" gets a -face from people who think the govt should pay for other people to look after their children.

Oh yes Arsenic he also usually wore middle-class dontscarethehorses jumper so the we all understood what a nice chap he is

Well said Mutley

This is what I've been trying to say throughout the thread but not so eloquently.
As a sahm I didn't need childcare, but the next sahm could well do.
Subsidised childcare should be offered to all, not everyone will need it but at least those who do will have the opportunity.

Yy re the libraries.

I've put my name down but I won't be that helpful when I return to work.They're closing down the youth centre,held a meeting and basically used polite blackmail re signing up to volunteer in the library.Inferred it will close as it can't carry on as it is.Has already had it's hours slashed,lost our librarian etc.Several pensioners there worried about the computer system etc reluctantly put their names on the list.

Big society my arse.

Why are my needs de-valued as opposed to a mum who goes out to work for the benefit of her mental health and reaps the rewards of subsidised childcare? If the government are subsidising, it should be for all.

out of my circle we have a mixture of backgrounds and reasons to work or not work, the most working mums are those that admit they dont need to work but they want too because they dont want to be at home with small children, day in and day out for years.

I have no problem with this, I think its great, this is the choice that women have fought for but yes, its a catagory that seems to get away with being subsidised and yet they have their cake and are eating it?

They arent actually gaining though Beyond
They are shelling out much more than they get back.

I probably look like "im having my cake and eating it" to you.
I didnt use CC ,work because I enjoy it (luckily)
but there is another larger elephant in the room.
My DH has a life limiting illness.
Ive WOH ,saved,paid off my mortgage because the worst will happen and he will need care.
Its not all Starbucks and Posh handbags .

Beyond, what do the dads want? Or are they less relevant?

And why is it the women being subsidised, rather than the men or the families? What an odd way of looking at it.