Parents of university age children never got ANY free childcare

[Cliff1975]

Whilst it is great that the government has finally realised that free childcare is needed those of us with university age children did not benefit from this and we are now supporting them through uni at great expense. Maybe once these kids who are getting free childcare get to uni that will be free too? Just can't help feeling that we are missing out from all angles?

I was a single parent in the 90s. No universal credit, no support with childcare, no tax credits. I got (IIRC) £6 per week lone parent allowance as part of child benefit. (Child maintenance didn't cover childcare costs - yet I was constantly told I was lucky I got anything) It was bloody hard going.

I'm delighted it's much easier now. It's not perfect - as an employer I'm told employees can't work more hours, take a payrise, receive a bonus or it "messes up the benefits" which is very frustrating. But all things considered we're in a better place.

No it benefits us as a society to have strong family units. The research is clear that babies and toddlers do better at home with their primary care giver. The only exception is when the quality of care at home is inadequate which is why some families receive 2 year funding. Obviously it's a blunt tool and many of those children receiving the funding are cared for properly at home.

About what though? Because you didn’t have something no one else should? Childcare in this country is a mess and the government are potentially doing something about it, why would you be whinging? This is such a selfish point of view.

Also:

We sacrificed holidays, second car, take always, meals out and expensive day trips were for birthdays and special occasions

athisnis fairly standard isn’t it? This is life. I can’t afford any of this stuff either but I don’t resent anyone else with young children getting free hours.

anyone angry about this just wants everyone else to struggle like they did. Don’t you want better for your children when they are parents? Don’t you want them to get free hours for your future grandchildren so they cAn have a better life?

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re whinging about either.

I'm not whinging - i am saying that i can understand why people are. Apparently being able to look at things from someone else's viewpoint is a skill lost in the mists of time.

just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they can’t see others point of view ever, they just don’t agree that there’s a need to whinge because someone else is now getting something which you didn’t. I didn’t get free childcare but I don’t resent anyone else getting it. Providing nurseries and childcare providers are catered for and aren’t getting screwed over then I’m pleased for my friends and other upcoming generations that their lives might be easier. Good for them.

We didn’t get it but I don’t see the point in whinging over it.

We had it easier in other ways. Things can improve which is good

I don't think university education is ever going to be free again! The price of that is only going one way, unfortunately.

I never got free childcare, but I am delighted that my daughter's might. How can you begrudge something that will likely benefit your children (and grandchildren)?

You’re blaming the wrong government OP - Labour was in power when today’s university generation were babies and toddlers.

You also sum up everything that was wrong with this country. Consumed by jealousy if you perceive someone is doing better than you. It has potential to benefit society in a number of ways. There are many children who would benefit from the high quality nursery provision that my children had. Using knives and forks, putting their coat on, potty trainin etc. nursery supported on all of this. So many children start school without these skills and good quality nursery care can help plug the gap.

Then there’s the fact that we need women in the work force. We have a major skills shortage and cannot afford for skilled women to drop out of the system.

Then there’s the cost of living crisis and inflation. Childcare has dramatically increased in cost. People are struggling. And those families in the middle that usually get little or no help will really benefit from this.

Seems like a bit of an odd thing for everyone to be celebrating. Now taxpayers are subsidising it so we can work even more hours to make the wealth gap even wider.

Would have been nice if they could have put that money towards something so we could all work less rather than more, but I guess that would be too much to hope for.

Society has to move with the times.

When you had small children house prices were significantly cheaper, bills were much smaller, pensions were better and a family could live happily with just one parent in work.

Now we have house prices through the roof, diabolical pensions, sky high bills and it's pretty much impossible for a mother to take a few years off to be a SAHM.

Boomers out in force.

This might sound sassy but I he ruins my don’t mean it like that - I can’t convey my tone of voice! I genuinely would like to know what you would suggest? A three day weekend? Lower cost of living? Lower pension age? Im genuinely wanting to know, not being sassy!

Is it an odd thing?
Seems like you have an extremely limited understanding of the economy.
Paying people to work less has no tangible economic benefit to the country.
Keeping women in skilled, paid work goes directly back into the public purse in the form of tax and a reduction in benefit top ups.

A reduction in working hours would be the first option if given the choice so that we can spend more time with our families, not less. Trials of four day weeks have been mostly successful in the places where they have happened and it's not like there hasn't been a precedent in the past for reducing the number of days we worked (it used to be only Sundays off).

It's about time we saw more of the benefits of the increases in efficiency and productivity that technology have produced over the last fifty years rather than it all ending up in the pockets of the top 1%.

Well I guess my limited understanding of the economy is that it should be working for our benefit, rather than us working for it.

Bit of a strange concept I appreciate.

My eldest DD is 28 and I definitely had some free hours at nursery for her. In 1997 the new Labour govt replaced the nursery voucher scheme for five free 2 1/2 hour sessions a week for all four year olds (only for 33 weeks though), which increased over the years to include 3 year olds and for more weeks. My DDs went for longer sessions, so we topped up the fees.
It wasn’t much, but it was a step in the right direction and despite having to contribute hugely for university for all three, I’m glad things are getting ‘better’ (maybe, I’m not so sure) for their generation. There’s still a long way to go to make things as good as some other countries.

I won’t benefit from this but I’m glad others will. However, I can kind of see why the OP is annoyed as people do have selective memories and/or overstate their point. There are lots of posts about cheaper housing. I posted a graph several pages back of mortgage to salary ratios 83 to 2020 from the same source a pp cited house price to salary ratio. Admittedly it posted a little blurry but you can see two peaks around 1990 - 49% take home pay- 2007/8 46% take home. There’s a sustained dip 93-2000 - of under 30% of income with a low of what
looks like 15% 1996. The rest of the period it hovers around 30% including as far as the graph extends to 2020, so it’s overegging it to claim generations were on easy street concerning housing costs. The rise in house prices is driven by low interest rates. It’s basic economics. If you you are not committing the money to interest, you have more to commit to the capital payment so house prices go up to fit the size of the purse. Size of the purse sits around 39%. What’s alarming now is that the rates need to stay low to maintain the income:mortgage ratio. There may be regional differences but where I am from, there was no vast stock of local authority housing either to offer easy, affordable options to the masses. My DF born mid 30’s exited the army to be homeless in the late 60s. On a similar note, it’s eye opening to look at an old Argos catalogue or even Woolworths Christmas catalogue- you can see how expensive relative to earning consumer goods were compared to a weekly wage. Again, don’t think I’m denying anyone a mobile phone or an avocado nor am I ignoring the fact that items like phones are necessities not optional extras, but it’s certainly true that many things cost more.

… also it was hard for many women to have a career as, like a pp said, nurseries as they are today did not exist. There was 1 council one in the large town I grew up in,
mainly to help families in crisis and benefit the child, not to help the parents work. No wrap around care either or flexible work options. If you didn’t have family help or a husband with fixed hours you could dovetail a second job too, many women were screwed. I must stress; I do not think this is a good thing. I want families to benefit from nursery help and wraparound care, maternity benefits and paternity leave particularly as it gives women more control over their lives. There is no such thing as the good old days so let’s not go backwards but let’s not have rose tinted specs either.

Actually we did - we got 12.5 hours nursery, increased to 15. Dd has already graduated and got this

I am old enough to not have received childcare help from the government but unlike some, I view that as a positive
The fact that more parents had to cover the costs themselves or stay home to look after their children meant that prices (especially house prices) were kept lower as mortgages had to be based on one salary in most cases.
So parents had choices
Nowadays both parents are pretty much forced to work to pay the bills regardless of their wishes. I don’t see how that can be progress?

I want families to benefit from nursery help and wraparound care, maternity benefits and paternity leave particularly as it gives women more control over their lives. There is no such thing as the good old days so let’s not go backwards but let’s not have rose tinted specs either.

I couldn’t agree more. Not having had those things and, as a second wave feminist having pushed hard for women to get them, I’m delighted that this kind of support is available. As far as I’m concerned, this is a very welcome aberration from the policies I’ve come to expect from this government. It’s a very weird feeling to approve of something they’ve done.

You don’t think women having careers is progress @Undisclosedlocation?

I think CHOICE is progress

in my child rearing time, I didn’t have the choice to continue work. That sucked!
Nowadays, many mothers have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not.

in that respect, I feel we have swapped one issue for another, rather than solve a problem

There's a twelve year age gap between me and my older sister.

She got free uni, middle sister paid a bit, I paid more.

Middle sister got her first house a mere three months after me and paid zero stamp duty, whilst I didn't.

Family give "milestone" cash gifts - except due to inflation, as the youngest, mine's technically worth less.

I think it's about time one of these swings and roundabouts went my way, tbh.

The research isn’t clear though, as there are studies that show being in a childcare setting is more beneficial to child development than having a stay-at-home parent. There are also studies that show that stay at home parents have poorer mental health than their working counterparts.

It’s not difficult to find a study in support of your biases.