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)

jess im confussed

does not mean im right. but i think this: mum or dad should be able to stay at home for first couple of years weather single or not after that then its time to go back to work. but i dont think it should have to be full time unless they want to. and jobs should be more parent friendly.

I can see that a parent or grandparent in most cases is going to be better than childcare for a very young child.

What I can't see is that it is so much better that it's worth the state paying for. It's not.

It only makes a difference on an individual level. It doesn't make any difference at a societal level, which is why it's something that individuals should pay for. They are the only ones that get the benefit.

Well I don't see why childcare should be funded for those who can afford it.

Lily.You are incredibly entitled!!
why do you think workers should pay for your choices? Why shouldn't they keep more of the money they have earned to spend on their own DC.

so needle in blunt terms is this happening because govenment does not want any parent at home? govenment wants everyone working? and so there is more tax being paid into the pot?

omg i get so confused. because then i think hows any money being saved/put in the pot if there are top up benefits being paid to low earners. think i need to give up :/

ghostspirit im sorry if I came across argumentative. I'm not trying to be I promise.

I understand your point, but I cant agree with you. Surely that's what maternity is for? After that you choose what is best for you and family?

I work full time and when I had a period as a sahp I funded it myself so no entitlement here thanks.

i dont like that word choices. because its not as simple as someone choice to do this or that.

Oh and May going by your argument why then shouldn't I get to spend more of my money on my children instead of funding other people's childcare?

jess haha your not comine over argumentative not at all :)

its me im just thinking and type what i think then get feedback/responce and see if i think/feel any different.

so needle in blunt terms is this happening because govenment does not want any parent at home? govenment wants everyone working? and so there is more tax being paid into the pot?

I can't speak for the government, I don't read enough of their stuff. But I don't think it's that they don't want parents at home, it's more that they don't want to pay for adults who could be providing for themselves, and they don't want to pay for children whose parents are capable of paying for them.

They probably don't really want to pay for childcare either, but as they can't stop people from having children, then the best thing for them to do is to enable parents to provide for themselves and their children by stopping the ludicrous situation we currently have where people cannot afford to work because childcare is too expensive. If they solve that problem, then healthy people with healthy children have no excuse not to pay their own way in life.

I have often wondered whether I could register as a childminder and only look after my child. That way, people wouldn't look down on me for looking after my own child and wouldn't consider me as 'not working' for 6 weeks in the summer and other school holidays as I would be 'a childminder' which is a paid job.

I am cross with the govt for introducing more free childcare as I find that is far less the issue that needs tackling. What we need is an understanding that women in the UK often work before children. They are educated, capable, able and willing to work. Many want to contribute to the household income as well as the country's economy. Is it childcare that is stopping us or is it the blatant lack of jobs that can be done part time, flexibily, at home, term time only, compressed hours, etc.

Where I live, my options for a local job that would allow me to work around school hours are limited to book keeping and cleaner. Despite me being a well-educated and trained person, I am forced to look for homeworking options (avoiding MLM schemes) that pay pittance.

If not, I either don't work or have to pay to put my child into childcare (not easy for us as DS has extra medical needs that make childcare really bloody hard too......no special benefits for that).

It's frustrating to walk home from school with parents (M&F) who are willing and able if only companies would work to find a way to tap all the wasted talent. And talent that is wasting away from lack of use. If we don't reproduce, we have no future population (over population and immigration arguments aside for one moment) so someone is going to have kids. It's crazy that only option soon will be to give birth, give your child to someone else to rear while you carry on grinding on the hamster wheel.

The govts plans also do not seem to include info and stats on the impact of nursery vs. parent raising that other countries seem to do - including starting school much later.

Not fun.

looks up how to move to Germany....or one of the many other Euro countries that thinks parenthood is a worthwhile cause

I think it's worth trying a policy where everyone works all the time, unless they are able to fund staying at home out of their own resources. There's no reason why a mother on benefits should get more than six months of "maternity leave", if that's all that working women generally take.

One can argue about the relative merits of home and nursery care. Even if home were sometimes better, it's not so much better that someone other than the parents should be paying for it. And I'm sure there are plenty of children who will get better care in a nursery than at home, not all parents are great. The kind of people who would be good SAHPs will likely also produce above-average child outcomes as working parents, it's not their children we need to worry about.

We've experience of the policy where the government paid people on benefits to SAHP, while many working people didn't have that option. It led to some women aiming for a life on benefits.

If we adopt a policy of everyone working, even those whose job pays less than childcare, which the government will then have to subsidise, it may lead to far fewer children being born into deprived circumstances. The cost of subsidising low-earning parents might turn out to be less than we'd expect from past data, because different rules might lead to different choices.

So given my scenario. I am a sah with a spouse who earns approx 60k so we pay lots of tax and rightly so and receive no child benefit. I am allowed to sah as taxpayers are not paying for me to sah. Say the worse happens and dh died. The children would be grieving the loss of their dad but at least I would still be there for them in the school holidays and to take them to cubs, scouts, swimming etc. O no wait, I would be expected to return to work.

"They don't want to pay for adults who could be providing for themselves,and they don't want to pay for children whose parents are capable of paying for them".

Err isn't funding the childcare of those on £50k and above(the wealthy in Tory eyes) doing just that?

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

And this is why I am not fond of this enormous benefit state that the UK has built, it breeds this idea that the government is a kind of benevolent parent-figure. I used to tell my parents that it wasn't fair for me to have to pay for anything essential, it certainly worked while I was a teenager.

Or, fabby, you could take out life insurance?

I'm on a similar salary, DH is on much less bit works by choice - however we have life insurance for me so that we're I to die, he would have options in the short to medium terms.

Not all childcare providers are great.By your argument only the Outstanding providers should be allowed to provide care.

Or, fabby, you could take out life insurance?

Yep.

Interesting discussion.

Have just been thinking that we only had one child because that's all we could afford and we didn't at any point expect Govt to pay anything while either of us were SAHP's. We did get child benefit though.

So, now thinking are there people out there with 4 kids who didn't think if they could afford them or not who are not working and getting 'paid to stay at home with tax credits'? Not sure what tax credits are, but surely they are not getting paid to be at home with kids???

Hmmmm.....am all confused now. I guess if you can't afford stuff for the first kid, then maybe Govt should help. Esp if circumstances changed e.g. divorce or DH ran off while pregnant kinda thing. But after one, you surely don't have more if you can't afford to stay at home or can't get a job to work?

basket I think you've got it spot on there.

exactly, there is the option of paying life insurance, or choosing not to be insured.

What about people who have family to do all their childcare for free? They have a massive advantage over those who don't have that benefit.

Enabling two parents to work full time has pushed house prices up to an excruciating limit.

norock you have tobe working to get the 30 hours

Or, fabby, you could take out life insurance?

I agree, but this seems to be controversial on MN. I think some people are uneasy at the suggestion that they can protect themselves against unforeseen disasters rather then relying upon the government/blaming bad luck.