that the government is doing a u-turn on free childcare for 2 year olds?

[JustAnotherMum2b]

I'm glad to hear on the news that the Government have come come to their senses and won't be abolishing childcare vouchers for basic rate tax payers. But sounds like the upshot is that the plans to deliver free childcare places to a third of all 2year olds have been kicked into the long grass.

Such a disappointment.

I understand that there won't be as much money in the kitty now from vouchers. But if childcare is really a priority, like they keep telling us it is, they should find the cash from somewhere else so they can keep to the promise the PM made at Labour Party Conference. Or at least go some of the way and give free places to the poorest children.

Labour won't be getting my vote unless they sort this...

Oh FFS, i've had nurseries and cms and am a SAHM now who stilluses a CM

The balance is they key, not you being there every bloody second, as if that is possible for everyone anyway, or desirable.

So where else will the money come from OP? Seems like everything ahs to face cuts tbh, and as a poorer person I;drather still get my disability support than a free place for ds4 in 3 months.

My husband has been unemployed for 12 months so if he has a secretary, he's doing well to fuck her.

TSC calm down, its just one eprson- not worth raising your BP over.

That's a cruelaptornising comment MMM

I put ds4 in so I can have a break, today I had a bath and then put on a stew.

Sometimes I stay in bed.

When he gets home I shall BF him then play with him for hours.

he'snotmissing out and the break amkes me a better Mum (I also have 3 otehr children ats chool, 2 disabled so am up many nights).

Don't jusge, its impossible to know anyones whole story without actually being them.

But in fairness of balance

TSC thats also not truee depending on where you live, DH has been without work since May barring a few hours part time and there are no jobs where we are in SE Wales, it was ahrd enough to get one to start with- as opposed to where Mum is as there arelaods listed in her paper still.

Chuck in a few challenging details (cant drive and live in a village, bad health history) and you're fucked frankly.

Dh is studying now as well but is loucky to have that chance

Virgin I have no issue with your putting your child where ever you like, providing you pay for it yourself, you may look back and if you have the experiences with childcare that I have had and regret it, or you may not, I hope it's not the latter.

2nd obviously he's poking a hole in the entire set of his female university mates, I've decided though it's one less thing for me to do of a weekend though so everyone's happy !

Um

We all pay our taxes, the govt and other bodies decide how to distribute them.

If someone doesn't like the way public money is distributed then they can approach their MP, vote for another govt at elections.

To have a go at individuals for taking up benefits that they are entitled to is insane.

Fine but then don't come on asking if others think it's unreasonable, I do, very unreasonable.

Working parents aren't the poorest parents because they actually get off their backside and work. (A strange concept for some on mumsnet)

Labour has u turned on the childcare vouchers because they have realise that if they tax middle income families then it will no longer be profitable for anyone to get off their arse and work.

At our playgroup we offer 3 hr sessions , the 3 yr olds get funded for 2.5hrs then we charge the top up fee.

With the 2 yr old funding coming in ,we were going to suffer financially . I am glad to hear therefore that 2 yr old funding is going out the window.

Its the small coummity charity based playgroups etc that were going to suffer heavily under this 2 yr old funding.

If you have to work when you have a 2 yr old you are not likey to use a playgroup that just runs for 3 hrs , the fat cat nurseries will still be in business but small sessional setings like us were heading out the window.

Nice amount of bitterness here. Wow.

I'm glad the government has done a U-turn on places for two year olds. I'm now a SAHM with no family support but next year when my youngest is two I don't want him to be in a nursery setting. (DS1 was physically bullied when he was in nursery and the staff, although caring, were unable to stop all of the bad behaviour.) DS2 is on the list for a local creche which is two hours a week (and £6 so affordable) and he goes to the creche at our local church so has another hour a week away from me. I think that's enough at this age and I don't think that government supported universal childcare at two is a good thing.

Now I know some families are really struggling to cope, or there may be other issues with disability in the family etc. In those cases, I support relief childcare for those families but I do not think it should be universal and just automatic for low income families. I don't think it's good for the kids. It may not be bad for them, but I don't think it's 'good' and worth tax payers money.

Further, childcare for low income families where both (or the single) parent(s) work is partially provided through tax credits - up to 80% of the childcare costs. That's pretty brilliant (says me who used to pay for all our childcare when I still worked). This additional funding seems to be aimed more at SAHMs then.

I still don't quite understand why nursery places are free for all 3 year olds though?

Surely if they means tested the 'freeness' then they could then help more people?

I dont understand why my (perfectly well off) SAHM friends can have free child care for their 3 year olds (and reduced child care at a few pounds a session) for their two year olds. Meanwhile as I work I cannot take advantage of this and instead have to pay? From their facebook statuses most of them seem to go home watch tv and drink coffee.

Disclaimer - obviously many people need a break (for example, Peachy, in your post no one would ever deny you that time to yourself).

Either it should be transferrable for all or means tested?

You don't have to send them at 2 or even 3 though, hiker, it's not compulsory. If you want to keep your pre-school children at home with you then no-one will tell you that you can't do that.

peppa in my area the free sessions for 3 year olds are run by the local schools and are educationally based rather than to provide help to mothers. I thought the basis for them was as school preparation.

If you use a private nursery, people around here (Scotland) have reduced fees (by £160 a month for 9 months a year I think) to account for this government funding. Do you not get this benefit?

all 3 & 4 yrs old are entitled to free part time aerly 'education'. Now they are not many state run nursery school , i.e attched to local primiary etc, so it has to be funded by the government as they cannot provide the actual settings themselves.

You dont have to send your child to playgroup etc but the majority of people do , its not formal learning- its all about play and social interaction.

ISNT, I know it's not compulsory - but my opinion on how government money should be spent is that this is not the right place to spend it. Why not spend it on more targeted help? Some of the families with disabled children on here seem to have trouble getting adequate support and relief. I think it would be far better spent helping them.

But it is seen as a part time early education not childcare.

As state n ursery schools have gone by the wayside then the government has had to find alternative.

it wouldn't be fair to have free places in one part of the country because they have the state nursery school and parents have to pay for it fully in another part.