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)

[fabby40]

We do have life insurance which would cover the mortgage and living expenses for a year maybe.

[elderflowerlemonade]

I think fabby was pointing out that the state wouldn't automatically step in and organise her finances and affairs for her; that she would need to do that herself.

[PtolemysNeedle]

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

No more so than paying for their child's school place, or their child's operation.

Children will always cost society before they are old enough to contribute, but there's a big diffenrce between paying for a child's care so that their parent can work, and paying for a child's home, clothes, food as well as an adults clothes, food, housing, bills and everything else so that they can potter around at home going to coffee mornings.

[LilyTucker]

But parents on £50 k and above can work and fund their own childcare.

[PtolemysNeedle]

Not sure what tax credits are, but surely they are not getting paid to be at home with kids???

You'd think, but unfortunately that is the sorry state of affairs we currently have. People are indeed paid more money for every child they have, and they are paid enough so that they can stay at home and contribute nothing to their own finances.

[namechangefortoday543]

What about those who work evenings and weekends Basket to ensure their DC are looked after by a parent ?
Are they at a massive advantage???
All I hear is weekend work- NO !
I inconvenience myself to do that- tough shit , you have kids then work to pay for them.!
House prices are way more complex than women WOH

[PtolemysNeedle]

Fabby, there's a big difference between the government stepping in to support someone in tragic circumstances, and supporting someone who wants the right to make luxury choices they can't afford.

[PtolemysNeedle]

But parents on £50 k and above can work and fund their own childcare

And parents who are physically capable of working can fund their own children. And themselves!

Subsidised childcare will help them do that.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

"Fabby, there's a big difference between the government stepping in to support someone in tragic circumstances, and supporting someone who wants the right to make luxury choices they can't afford."

How would the government know the difference though? I have thought this before myself. We're in a similar situation to Fabby, one earner on 60k and a SAHP with 3 dc. If dh were to die, I would just be a single parent on benefits surely? They wouldn't think "oh george is more deserving because her dh was killed and he used to earn 60k a year".

[pollyisnotputtingthekettleon]

My mom was a single parent 30 odd years ago on benefits... there were no jobs that worked around the kids ... nothing has changed. Thats not good! Those were the days when 1 worker could afford housing. Now you need two to afford a home. Nothing has worked in the moms favour. Yes parents have a responsibility but the gov. does too ... when I had twins after DD i needed to earn £36k Just to pay childcare - without any extra. It is incredible hard and women should be campaigning to change the working hours rather than extend child care.

[Alfieisnoisy]

Personally speaking I would have loved 30 hrs of subsidised childcare when DS was small. We would have been much better off financially.

For women who have never worked I think this gives a good chance for them to get into the workplace. Quite honestly I couldn't care less about the welfare system and the cost. For me it's about helping women to feel independent .

Obviously if you can't work for health reasons that's different. But for normal healthy women I think work is fab....I loved my job and really had the best of both worlds.

I once worked with a young Mum. I saw her with her new baby on her 21st birthday.....it was her fourth child. I will never forget the desolation in her face as she said "I'm 21 and I've got four kids".

She wanted to he a hairdresser and subsidised childcare would have been a step in the right direction for her to get out and build a new life for herself.

[PtolemysNeedle]

Maybe that's one of the situations that would be improved if both parents worked, and while I very much doubt it's been part of the governments motivation, it does show a good reason why it's better for financial stability to provide something for yourself.

My DH did die very suddenly last year, and I have increased my part time hours very slightly to help me pay for stuff. It is fortunate that I've been able to do that. I've also been given widowed parents allowance, which has apparently been calculated based on my DHs NI contributions. It's pretty generous, and while I could just about afford to live without it, our household income has obviously taken a huge battering since the main earner is no longer here. Maybe you'd get quite a lot of widowed parents allowance if your DH earned £60k, I don't know. But I agree that this is what insurance is for. We didn't have any, but if I didn't have a job and a means to support myself we might have done. I have a responsibility to provide for my children either way.

[tobysmum77]

All this 50k stuff are we talking joint income? If one person is on 40k and the other 10k they cant afford childcare.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Why can't they afford childcare tobysmum? That's two incomes, with neither paying higher rate tax. In fact, the 10k earner isn't paying any income tax at all. They have a higher take home pay than the single income family on 60k.

[Basketofchocolate]

Also, £50k round here does not allow you to afford more than a small house in a 'just about ok' street in a town well know for its status in the Crap Towns of Britain. We are living here because we're close to family, although get no childcare from them. We are looking to move to another part of the country where it is easier to live on that kind of income more comfortably.

Back in my parents' day, that equivalent salary would have afforded a rather naice house in a naice area, with a huge garden, double drive, holidays abroad at least once a year. A friend of my Dad's was one level above me in the same level in an industry when he retired as I was before I had DC. I was struggling to even consider buying a 1 bed flat on my own whereas him and his wife (who'd never worked a day) lived in comparative luxury.

Cost of living has gone up out of proportion.

Polly is right, nothing has changed in working hours for parents in that time. Although, I think then jobs in schools, etc. were advertised more as 'jobs for mums' which is probably no longer allowable, which means you are advertising a post that doesn't mention term time, etc. as that would be discriminatory, so if you have a young graduate looking apply, why not have them instead?

[tobysmum77]

erm because the childcare may well be more than the 10k. So the lower earner basically can't afford to work.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Surely the child care money comes from both salaries and is not the sole responsibility of the 10k earner. The benefits for the 10k earner to work are that they keep their hands in and increase their experience and qualifications levels. Childcare is only temporary and the high costs are then outweighed by keeping up with skills, etc. I don't think that parents should be paid to stay at home, but the SAHP does sacrifice an income and keeping up with skills, etc that the working parent keeps. I'm not sure why the family on a joint income of 50k should be paid by the government to put their children into childcare.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I should add that I think if the government are hell bent on subsidising childcare for working families, then they should look at helping parents with children of all ages, not just 3 and 4 year olds and it should be given to help lower income families, not families on 50k.

[ghostspirit]

ihategeorge i 100% agree. i really do not get why its not for younger children as well. i think time i have paid child care im going to have about 20 pounds of my wage.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

I was looking through my daughter's book bag tonight and their was a flyer from the holiday club. The costs were a basic of £28 per child per day. That is a lot of money to find especially with more than one child. I'm not sure the governments pledge to offer free child care to pre-schoolers for families earning up to 300k is the best use of state funds, when families earning significantly less don't get any help with school age children.

[ihategeorgeosborne]

Sorry, should read there not their!

[ghostspirit]

childcare here is about 7 pounds an hour

[duplodon]

I don't think nursery is good for kids. On the whole, it's probably fine - but good? Better than reasonably good (not abusive) maternal or paternal care?
Not really. I don't think evolution moves that quickly and I think as a species we were meant to have kinship/community care, not for kids to be cared for by strangers with high turnover of staff. When I was a kid if your mam worked you had a local childminder who was someone else's mam and you played out the back and came in for tea, you didn't spend your life free-flowing between sensory bins and alphabet trays or have a three page report on your learning at two and a half. Kids today certainly have a much better deal than chimney sweep Victorian kids or 18th century tots swaddled and hung on lines by a peg so believe me, I'm no pearl clutcher asking that we think of the CHILDREN but I think the benefits of group care are very often highly oversold.

[Basketofchocolate]

Actually, Ihategeorge that's a good point. We now have DC in school, and both of us working seems like a great idea, even if one choose part time to do school run but school hols are crippling. Can easily blow loads of salary or total annual leave for both just on summer hols. Now am thinking that sod the younger kids, I want my bloody career back - I want childcare help for school holidays!!

A very basic childcare set up here for summer hols is £35 a day (essentially a nursery, so just playing in a hall with a small, hard outside area - no garden or going on outings or anything - worse than school so not much of a holiday for a child!). A day!! We're lucky that we found a specialised place that does £20 a day but only for first two weeks of the hols and they can't go the full two weeks and places are really limited.