Osborne to announce free childcare for 2 year olds

[OliviaMumsnet]

In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor will outline a £650 million scheme to provide free early education for about 40 per cent of two year-olds.

Just wondering what MNers think about this....

It won't be paid for solely by other families. It will be 'paid for' by all of us through taxes. Personally I would put this scheme above benefits and tax credits because it is the most vulnerable toddlers who get a helping hand when they need it the most.

Tax credits, benefits etc can be spent on anything, while this scheme directly helps young children as well as their families.

Furthermore, in my experience, the children who use the places are those from families who do not access any other services, and the scheme offers workers a chance to build relationships with vulnerable families.

Huntycat, I'm glad you are able to teach your children to read, dress themselves and don't neglect them. I only wish every toddler was as lucky.

what good is that to them if they are starving mellow?

and should someone else's toddler go without heating so that a neglected toddler somewhere might get some nursery time?

i think you need to broaden your gaze.

But it isn't one or the other Swallow, it's just not that simple. I want every child to be well fed and warm - who wouldn't? I would also gladly pay more tax for this to happen.

I think my gaze is broad enough - is yours? Did you know that 90% of serious case reviews (when a child is murdered or seriously abused) is on under fives? Why - because once they get school they are seen. I believe, as someone else wrote up thread, that these nursery places are protective for the most vulnerable.

they are taking from tax credits and surestart to fund this. it IS that simple.

Swallowedafly - Our area does get all that because we are in the top 5% of deprived areas, massive teenage pregnacy area, and we have such a large percentage of children under 5 on the at risk register. You couldnt cut it in an area like this really, and I only really know my own area. However I think in general this scheme is good and they dont want to call it early intervention I suppose as parents wouldnt want to be a part of it.

On the other poits I live with my husband and we are both on very low wages ad only get a small amount of help towards childcare no other benefits but I would still gladly have cuts from my own life for these children, as I see them every day I know how much they need it.

hunty - by the way just got in from work and read this I wasnt the one to say anything about you having 4 kids so you dont have to justify it.

Catching up on today's pertinent, poignant and, er, priceless posts, it is clear to me now that the government is making it up as they go along.

There's no long term strategy on the best way to educate, nurture and fund the next generation of Britons, some Tory thinks up a brilliant idea and they see if they can fit it in somewhere.

I feel like I'm in a game of pac-man. You get your points, your new life, take all the right moves and then suddenly from round a corner a monster comes and and eats you up.

but it would be cuts from their lives too molly - their households would lose the money too! and often they're from households totally dependent on benefits and living at or below the poverty line.

agreed thereal - basically it's all knee jerk stuff - the women aren't happy and may not vote for us. hmm what bone can we throw at them? let's announce free childcare for 2yo's they'll like that. but we can't afford it! oh we won't actually give them it we'll just carry on with this existing scheme that is f all to do with childcare but they'll be dumb enough to think it's something new and applies to them. oh ok. worth a whirl.

I like your example of political improvisation. It's exactly what it is really.

This proposal is nothing new. In the dying days of Labour government, Gordon Brown suggested removing tax relief on childcare to fund places for two year olds, which was shouted down by his own party. Nick Clegg was talking about places for disadvantaged toddlers just a few weeks ago and George Osbourne has now increased the numbers.
It's an attempt at closing the divide in achievement when children enter school - limited language and anger management skills (etc) are not a sound foundation for future learning. Pound for pound, it's worth intervening early.
This has nothing to do with getting women back into the workforce. My prediction is they'll use the Sure Start centres, dust off the toys and target those likely to start school 'underperforming'.

It galls me that mainstream childcare subsidies are being removed to plug a hole created by people who can't be bothered to talk to their kids, however. Why not run childcare classes in the next (same?) room and link attendance to benefits?

I think it is about childcare and getting mothers back to work. Clegg would prefer a swedish type of society where mothers and fathers equally share parenting and all children attend nursery from a young age. Universal childcare for all infants and children. They call it 'pulling men' into the home and 'pushing women' out to work. Why not let people choose for themselves?

'So, the Govt will re-assess - take away - my dla to pay for a nursery place for my 2 yr old - to 'enable' me to look for a job for '2 1/2' hours a day.'

The stuff I have read says that they are hoping the allocated hours can be used flexibly at times between 7am-7pm. So perhaps two days a week. And it did talk about getting mothers into work...

'So George Osborne has decided that all recipients of Tax Credits are feckless layabouts, even if they have a working parent in the family, so he has decided to take some of their Tax Credits away in order to pay for someone else to look after their dc...'

Agree with you.

I think it is unfait to cut tax credits because I know people who depend on them to eat and who took mortgages out including them. People get hundreds a month in some cases which they may lose. However, I think they will probably just freeze them rather than suddenly cut them off? As far as I know (I may be wrong) when they move to universal credit, SAH will still get them until their youngest child is 5 (although I feel this will eventually move to 1 knowing the ConDems) when they will be pushed into work.

loved your last post therealhouseife . Please post more!

Aww shucks!

"Get mothers back into work" ???? What work ? There's no work out there !

pretend it is possible for mothers to work (never mind childcare issues and the fact there are no jobs ) that way it gets politically easier to take away benefits and ctc for in particular single mothers who can't find work.

Of course SAF - it's cheaper for the government to pay £50 a day for a nursery place than it is to pay a family £xx to cover their benefits and credits. Devious bastards. Sorry to swear, but there you go.

£50 a day? 2.5hrs for children virtually at risk. not sure which way to take your comment pretend?

real funded childcare would of course be cheaper but we're busy cutting the childcare element of wtc currently. there are rocks and hard places being created all over the shop. total no win scenarios being created whereby everyone can be shamed and scapegoated despite having zero meaningful means to change their circumstances

£20 an hour for a nursery place? I'm definitely in the wrong business.

Actually £4.85 an hour for 15 hours a week

taken out of poor families pockets throwing them deeper into fuel and food poverty and being spent on pretending that a child that should be in care has been dealt with by sending it to nursery for a couple of hours a day.

I think I'm agreeing with you Santa, that the motivation behind these funded childcare places is that it means that mothers can't use their children as an 'excuse' for not working. That means the state pays less for the family as a whole because benefits may be cut. So you go to the jobcentre, they find you a job at tescos, you can't say I can't work because I'm looking after young children, you get the job you hate, your children lose their Mummy for the daytime.

And Mummy can't afford much more than before anyway because she's paid so badly but doesn't get the benefits any more.

I remember years ago seeing a programme about the US where poor workers were being bussed out to rich suburbs to work as nannys etc or they would lose their benefit. Their own children had to stay at home alone or with Grandma or whoever was prepared to keep an eye on them. We are going the same way and if Cameron messes up in Europe we won't have half the rights and privileges as parents that we have now. Maternity pay, parental leave, loads of rights were offered workers purely as a result of EU rules.

that's so gross.

i think the thing is that of course in principle a healthy, able, woman can be expected to work whilst her children are at school. however there has to be an acknowledgement of the realities of that principle - the availability of school time jobs, the availability and suitability of before and after school care, etc. your children being at school doesn't suddenly mean you can do night shifts at tescos or weekends in a care home which may be the only work available. so single mum's for example will be switched to jobseekers allowance and treated like a 20 year old man with no commitments. if she can't find a job she will have 10% shaved off her housing benefit leaving her and her children homeless or even further under the poverty line (not to mention if she is getting child support through the csa the government are going to take 12% off in stealth taxes).

there will be zero acknowledgement of the fact that actually there are NO jobs she can do given she has dependents that she has to care for outside of school hours. she will be treated as though she was exactly the same as a willfully lazy single man with no dependents who chooses not to work because he makes enough selling a bit of weed to his mates.

there is still, for now, acknowledgement that you can't force a woman to work when her kids are under school age due to the financial realities and maybe at least a nod to the fact that mothering a baby or pre schooler might actually be quite important.

it's when they hit school age that you're screwed.

given women and society has moved on we have to find ways to create school hours jobs. you can no longer assume the big man goes out to work and the little woman is there at home to fit around bizarrely out of synch school hours for married people. most married people can't even afford to live like that and single mum's have no chance short of splitting themselves in two.

sorry long old waffle.

get what you're saying now pretend.