Am I being unreasonable to think that the Government's policy to make mums go back to work is misguided?

[mountaingoat]

Just interested in what mumsnetters think about this one. I've been a working mum and a SAHM so I have no axe to grind either way. It just strikes me that:
if mums want/ need to go back to work then they should be given every opportunity to do so. But, why should it be a policy that mums must go back to work? Why is it better for mums to go back to work? Surely it is just a matter of choice?
I would guess that Messrs Cameron and Osborne have (a) rarely spent a day looking after babies and pre-school age children and certainly not for months or years on end 24/7 - and actually have no idea what is involved; and (b) their experience of childcare for their own children is probably highly paid and qualified nannies or very smart nurseries. My kids have all been through nursery and there are wonderful nurseries out there. but there are also nurseries which are mediocre, and if there is a quick, ill thought out expansion of childcare provision, there will be more mediocre nurseries out there for sure. Why is it better for a mum of pre-school age children to leave them in a nursery with a crowd of other toddlers being looked after by a teenager with an NVQ2 in childcare, than to stay at home and look after her own children until they do go to school?
I don't want this to turn into a wm v sahm thread (yawn)
also, I'm talking about situations where one parent is working to pay for the family and the other parent is staying at home to do the childcare. Not talking about families where no-one is working and they are expecting to stay at home with the kids and for the state to fund it (think these people mainly exist only in the minds of Daily MAil journalists anyway)

Absolute entitlement to presume the state is going to fund the care of your children.You are the parent,it's your responsibility. The poorest I sympathise with and agree with helping but the rest can tighten their purse strings for a few years,plan ahead and have the family they can afford as far as I'm concerned.

I think free childcare needs to be on a means tested basis. It seems ridiculous to give the same amount of free childcare to a couple whose joint income is, for example, £150000 as to a couple who together earn £40 or £50k. Also I don't think there are proven benefits to society of raising a generation of children who spend their lives in childcare.

Did you always have a nanny, Lotus? You've told us that your DC went to private school with wrap-around care and what with your XH being a teacher in one you must have been able to manage the school holidays with no outlay at all.

That is not the case for most people. Even amongst high earners you had a bloody lucky unique set of circumstances!

PtolemysNeedle I completely agree!

Surely decisions to have children and either work or SAH is up to each individual family?
If you can afford to stay at home then so be it.
But for a lot of people that isn't an option.
But its not up to the government to decide, and I really cant see how they are forcing people to work.

Nobody is listening. If you're a lone parent this WILL force you back to work. Why should only women with a partner have the choice?

Because the couple can afford it? if you can't afford to fund your self taking years off work, why should anyone else have to fund you? In what way is it fair or reasonable for tax payers to be expected to fund someone choosing to take years off work? that makes no sense. we all of us in life choose between the options we can afford, for everything.

Childcare in the early years is simply wrong for many families and more importantly for many babies and young children.Many do need to have a sahp at some point which is why they take the biggest financial hit of all to have one.

Why? What makes it so wrong? Why would a family need to have a SAHP beyond the maternity period?

i still think single parents should be able to stay home if they want to. yes maybe it will be paid for out of the pot. but single parents and their children have/had enough shit going on.without being punished for being single and doing their best for their child single handed.

Absolute entitlement to presume the state is going to fund the care of your children.You are the parent,it's your responsibility.

You are completely contradicting yourself with this statement. Unless of course you agree that SAHPs shouldn't be funded by government?

Surely if any of these opinions are entitled, then it's got to be far more entitled to expect your life and that of your child to be paid for instead of funding your life and your child yourself and just getting a it of help with childcare?

Punished for being single? Having to pay for your own needs in life is being punished?

But Karbon you can switch that around for childcare.

A sahp is simply another childcare option. As a parent you know that bundle will need to be cared for and as you choose to bring it in the world you will have to provide it.

It is pretty obvious that for a temporary time you will be very poor. Childcare provided by strangers really should be given no higher priority than childcare provided by a parent.

Childcare for unlimited numbers of kids given to families who aren't poor and could manage to tighten their belts for those few short years is wrong imvho and no more worthy than helping a family to have a sahp for a short period of time.

We are listening Karbon .The fact is that anybody who doesn't have independent wealth is forced to work..

Where do you think this money tree is that should provide for people who don't want to work? there isn't one! It is individuals who are working and paying taxes who are paying for you.

In answer Ptolomy to your last question because toddlers and young children are happier and more secure with a family member and their own environment. Surely keeping childcare providers in work is neither here nor there and should not be a consideration as regards what is best for you them.

I simply don't see that 10 hours a day away from home and security in a nursery is in the best interest of any young child unless it is necessary for food on the table and the mental health of both parents.

A few hours a week at a pre school is a whole different scenario.

"i still think single parents should be able to stay home if they want to. yes maybe it will be paid for out of the pot. but single parents and their children have/had enough shit going on.without being punished for being single and doing their best for their child single handed."

But why do you think its any different with both working parents?
And why do you think you are be being punished?

needle i might not be getting it i dont know. but some people say they should be able to stay at home with their child because they feel thats whats right for their child so thats what they will do. But if a single parent feels the same. thats not ok because she is single. and the couple have the support of each other. single parents dont have that.. im not sure what i feel about childcare when children are very little.

some say their partner works so they can afford it we often later find its tax credits that allow them to stay at home not saying they should not but the people that do claim the tax credits to stay at home are no different to the single mum whos at home

and the people who truely do not claim anything to have a stay at home parent comes across that its only good.high earners that should be able to stay at home.

But end of the day govenment will do what they want anyway no matter how much its discust or how many threads there are

In answer Ptolomy to your last question because toddlers and young children are happier and more secure with a family member and their own environment.

Like I said, I'd be interested in your evidence. Until I see some, it's just an opinion. An opinion that is unsupported by plenty of small children I see that are in or who have been in childcare, and as schools don't routinely report problems with children who have been in childcare, I think we can reasonably assume that while it might not be a persons first choice, childcare isn't harmful or detrimental.

Keeping childcare workers in a job is of course not the priority, it's just an added bonus, but you still don't seem to have anything to say that shows SAHPs are so vital to society that they should be paid for by society.

Lem73 maybe if you had gone back to work when ds was 1, you would be able to send him to a school with higher academic standards (or pay more science tutors).

jess im dont think im being punished. i normally work anyway but on materniy leave. im just talking in general.

i think if both parents want to work go for it and if one wants to stay at home thats ok to.

but i also think its ok for a single parent to stay at home

thats not ok because she is single.

It's not that it's not ok because she's single. It's that it's not ok if you expect other people to pay for it. Single or coupled is irrelevant, because some single parents can't afford to SAH and some parents in couples can't afford to have one of them SAH.

You're focussing on this being something unfair towards single parents when that has nothing to do with it. You are assuming that all couples must automatically be able to afford to have one person out of work and that's just not the reality.

needle ok i get you. but what about the parent the stays at home because tax credits pay for it?

toddlers and young children are happier and more secure with a family member and their own environment.

My children would be happier and more secure in a private school, so please can you all pay for that , too?
You still don't get it do you? It is about you taking responsibility for yourself and the children you choose to have

ghost But that's the problem. Its not about wanting to work though. Its needing to work. Why should it have to be different for anyone else?

Um you don't get it do you,it's about you providing the care and the body for the child you chose to have.

I see no reason why the tax payer should help to fund the childcare from down the road for many if it doesn't help to fund the childcare from the home particularly when for many families and children the latter is better.

Well very simply, you can't be cutting down benefits as much as possible wo also giving some help to some of the population (ie SAHM in tis case) so they can actually work.

So the government is making it that all mothers have to go back to work because basically, a lot of the financial help available before isn't there so a lot of mothers will HAVE TO anyway.
The ones who were paying for childcare in full will carry on. The ones who were able to live on one wage will do so too.
For the others, it's about making the system workable.

Plus the tories have always thought that everyone should be working anyway.

And more and more it is expected from women to be able to stand on their two feet financially, eg in case of divorce. In that respect, changing 'customs' from having a majority of mothers SAHM to a majority being full time employement might not be a bad idea.
What would really help, imo, is some incentives so that employers are introducing more flexi time etc... so it makes it easier for parents to work full time and be parents.

Ptolemy you need to get googling,there are plenty of studies out there. A childcare provider who doesn't see that a family member is preferable is slightly concerning. When I was a degree educated Outstanding provider I still knew I was second best to a parent or grandparent.

needle ok i get you. but what about the parent the stays at home because tax credits pay for it?

That's something I disagree with, and it think it's something the government disagrees with, which is why we are having the discussion!