To think statutory maternity pay should be the same amount as the state pension?

[BridgertonToBe]

I don’t have children, probably never will. But I do think SMP is shockingly low, and if the government is really worried about the birth rate they should look at this.

Many women on maternity only get SMP and no enhanced package from their employer. It’s current set at a maximum of £187.18 a week for 39 weeks. If mothers want to be off for 52, it will be unpaid.

The new state pension is £230.25 a week. While those on maternity may have a partner to support them, they probably won’t have any other income while many pensioners also have a private pension alongside the SP.

AIBU to think that if £230.25 is needed by all pensioners over 66 for a basic standard of living (who probably have less outgoings than a young family), SMP should be the same?

If we can afford to pay the state pension to every pensioner for the rest of their lives out of NI, we can afford to support new working mothers birthing and raising the next generation of workers for a short amount of time. The financial hit is a big deterrent for people having children. I also think SMP should be paid from birth until the child’s first birthday.

Not really….after a while the staff won’t be strangers….my eldest GD age 10 went to nursery at 7 months….needs must and all that….her mum ( my DD) was 21 …..fast forward 10 years ….my DD now 32 has 11 years left on her mortgage ….she now works only part time…..those first years with 2 small children were tough financially but you do what you have to do to make it work….the U.K. isn’t 3rd world ….don’t know what people expect really

I’m sorry, but I think putting very young babies in, what is basically, an institution will come back to bite us all in the arse.

Much like all the children traumatised by boarding school are now speaking out about how awful it’s been for them.

I am not blaming parents who feel they have no choice, but what happened to having a baby and that baby being the most important thing on the planet?

Those families would get universal credit top
up

Don't be ridiculous.

It’s diabolical to send young babies into the care of strangers where they sit there with minimal to no care or attention. No physical or emotional needs met. You can spin it however you want to make yourself feel better but it is utterly horrendous that society has become like this where you cannot even look after your own baby.

If parents could afford to then there is no way they’d be sending babies or toddlers into nurseries.

Oh please. DBS really came into handy and so did the magic ‘safeguarding’ in the recent case of Vincent Chan. What’s even worse is ‘choice’ are you telling me if one had the ‘choice’ you’d dump your baby into a nursery ? Surely the reason why most parents are using them is because they do not have a choice because a double income is required today. Insane that there are so many who genuinely believe it’s safe and beneficial to leave your baby, your child, surely the most important and vulnerable being in a setting with complete strangers.

I speak from experience, there is a reason why nursery workers don’t and won’t send their own children there unless they happen to be working there at the same time.

Just say you care less about your child’s life and well being and move along.

Yes rare safeguarding things do happen. They do in family homes too. And yes it is a choice because people can choose to save up for longer to have longer mat leave. You're being deliberately inflammatory by using the word 'dump'.

Wow you're a piece of work.

In some job situations it's not possible to take longer maternity leave. You take what's offered or you have to gamble on a career break. There are some nasty shaming posts on here (I don't mean you!) and that's sad.

Come on, even you know it’s silly to say ‘no physical or emotional needs met’.

Yes they are fed, kept clean, nappies changed, entertained, sung to, cuddled etc.

They aren’t just left in a cot alone for several hours crying.

You assume being in a nursery means a child is being neglected - that simply is not true.

I agree. It's a really unkind thing to say to parents who feel they have no choice.

It’s a ridiculous pressure on all parents, and particularly mothers, to say if anyone else cares for your child it’s a form of neglect.

The idea women have been there 100% of their time with their children is not reality - women have always worked, the ‘SAHM’ just focused on home and kids is a lifestyle that only ever some could afford.

Instead of getting angry at me for pointing out the obvious get angry at the establishment for allowing this to happen. Children and babies developmental needs are not met in sterile nursery environments. It will get worse with the increased ours and poo quality that is being dished out. It’s not rare btw, another one to help you sleep at night it is in fact on the rise. The forecast for poor nursery standards and failings in safeguarding is dire but please remain angry over a stranger on the internet instead.

Nope, two key workers chatting away, doom scrolling whilst babies crawling around, crying, noses leaking, aimlessly staring at walls and essentially just sat there waiting for their parents. That’s the least and I repeat least of your concerns.

Tell me how can two keyworkers meet the emotional and physical needs of 5 babies? Really want to know when there are thousands of threads on this page where a single parent struggles to look after one screaming baby? They’re not met. They cry and cry and give up.

If you want choices get angry at the government/establishment rather than someone on the internet who is pointing out the truth. Babies and children shouldn’t be looked after in nursery settings if the parents don’t want it, they should have a choice. If nurseries are to remain then the standard of care needs to massively improve and ratios must come down.

The nursery workers are professionals - they are more skilled than the ‘single parent’, they aren’t trying to care for the babies in total isolation, they aren’t doing it 24/7 - a nursery worker and a parent whose not coping is comparing apples and oranges.

And no they don’t just ignore them while they crawl around - they tend to have quite a structured day (as you would at home) with meals, snacks, reading, music, messy play etc.

Why be such a doom-monger?

Go on, tell us all how you managed to afford staying at home for a decade or more, and in what way you think your children are better off than everyone else’s having been raised exclusively by you.

As I said, try to be less angry at a stranger on the net and focus on why my words irk you.

nursery workers are not professionals. Give me a break.

The nursery workers work for a pittance. The “single parent” loves her baby. The nursery workers get paid minimum wage to look after other people’s children.

Your views and comments aren't worth getting angry at. They're too basic. Plus it's pretty hard to take someone seriously who doesn't know the difference between hours and ours.

Yet here you are responding to me.

Oh well . Maybe I should've left my 13 week old alone when I went to work rather than putting her in nursery

And nursery staff aren't strangers after a little while.

Oh and the 2 of my kids that went to nursery are not traumatized by it. They are adults so perfectly able to speak for themselves. The other child of mine that went to a childninder isn't traumatized either

It absolutely should. If the government mandates a certain number of "caring" hours per day then they should be paying legal "wage" for it. The allowance is fine as is but only if there are no restriction on additional income or, at the very least, if penalties only start when the recipient of the allowance reaches combined "income" which is over national living wage. I think the whole thing is scandalous.
Not the point of the thread though...

Isn't it important the baby is housed fed and clothed though?

You can’t claim Carer’s Allowance at all if you’re in receipt of the State Pension.