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....

I am not going to name check your last comment k

< looks around >

MNP I agree with you

and lisa whatever you said

yes

yes

< dashes off to other thread to have a rant, whilst hanging onto somebody else's coat tails for grim death >

LisaD - Funded places don't jump to the front of the list here, I promise you. It is done on a first-come first serve basis - i.e. first on the waiting list is the first to be offered a place.

Danny Alexander can spread his own cheeks, thank you very much.

In my area surestart has always been able to get targeted families these hours at nursery.

I'm lucky my nursery is flexible with how the hours can be used whereas others don't follow the full rules to max their income. You still have to pay for meals so my free hours cost me £54 per month. ( I know that's very cheap for 15 hrs child are a week but the point is how are targeted families meant to pay for it. Oh and that's with dd going 3 times a week add 40% for 3 hours per day!

It could help families return to work, if there were any jobs, if it were linked to you job with in tax/ni or through the vouchers scheme foe example. I really don't see how 40% is going to help the country, well I guess it may create more nursery jobs

Oh and remember it's only term time so I think it would help more families to make it all year round under the current scheme.

Ridiculous.

It is social engineering by the Tories dressed up as childcare. This is in reaction to the riots (even though all the crimes were not committed by the 'under class' that was claimed at the time) - It is a cheaper and more targeted SureStart and the criteria will be very strict I am sure.

Where are all these flexible part time jobs then? For a decent hourly wage?

Gideon is an asshole, this is just rhetoric and trying to catch the female vote - It makes middle class people feel better about the 'poor and disadvantaged' - ultimately there will be a smugness about being too well off or not 'disadvantaged' enough to qualify.

Just another way of identifying problem children and parents early on and instead of supporting them in a constructive way just slapping a band aid over something too dark to really address without opening a dreadful can of worms that would implicate the former Tory government in their role in damaging society and bringing mass consumerism and greed to the masses.

Well 15 hrs a week is a pretty big subsidy (33%), so for many parents it might well make the difference between it being worthwhile and not being worthwhile going to work. Also, presumably you can use it in chunks, so could do 2 full days rather than 5 days of 3 hrs.

Can't see why you're all so down on it. Everyone always bangs on about how childcare should be subsidised or cheaper. Now it is and everyone's still moaning.

Tories, knobs, nuff' said !

So where are all these part time jobs to work round this?
Fuck off back to your mansion Gid.

"The new scheme, which is designed to appeal to women voters who may have felt neglected by the Coalition, will extend the entitlement to about 260,000 two year-olds."

1. Not all women voters are mothers

1. Not all women voters are mothers of children under 2yo

1. Very few of them will benefit under this scheme, as LisaD has pointed out.

1. Freezing tax credits to fund the Youth Unemployment Scheme is stupid. It would be worthwhile, if the scheme was actually likely to get youth into employment, but I doubt that.

I do like that he is planning to boost small and new businesses, and the lower tax threshold should benefit many (although not the really needy, as they are barely paying tax anyway, if at all).

I think that the announcement that this is to help mothers go back to work is a total red herring. I think the government is trying to get children from disadvantaged family backgrounds out of the home where they learn nothing into a setting where they will progress. It's education, not childcare.

Yes, good point, Bonsoir.

And that would be a good thing.

I was just thinking of the German system. They have subsidised childcare for all children from 3yo, and in many states it is free for lower income families. It is means tested, so the more you earn the more you pay.

Those with decent wage pay more (but still a reasonable price, we used to pay ?300 for fulltime day care) and those on low incomes pay less.

It means that women who want to go to work can, and the children from deprived areas, who may not be getting the mental stimulation at home, have some "early education".

Not learning to read or write, but being read to, having a decent meal once a day, being warm.

In France, nursery-style care is subsidised from two months to when children start school (in the September of the calendar year of their third birthday) on a sliding scale according to income. In reality it can be very hard indeed for higher earning parents to get a crèche place, but they do and crèches do at least try to ensure there is a social mix. Whether or not a standard crèche (and it is a FT only option in most crèches) is a better environment for very small children than their own home, with a parent or other childcarer, is quite a moot point when the home is warm and comfortable and the carer loving; however, for less privileged children a crèche with lots of facilities and toys is very often going to be a lot more stimulating and ordered than anything else.

I was just about to point out the same thing as Bonsoir.

We have also had this pilot running in our area - it has been done mainly through Surestart Centres within the City (we are in the county). It is run in the 'disadvantaged' areas of our city. I think its a great idea in principle but it doesnt play out. Unfortunately it doesnt get people back to work, its mainly used by parents who want to get the child out of their hair a year early. Whether thats because there are no jobs, three hours a day is too little or parents dont want to work I dont know.

Its just a smoke screen, a nice titbit to try and distract from the cuts that are coming. Where is the money coming from.

I can think of better ways to spend the money TBH.

I don't think highly subsidised childcare really works unless it is FT - it needs to be FT to have a significant impact on the child's development and it needs to be FT to allow parents to do something constructive with their days.

I don't see the gain in this either and I dearly want to know where the money is coming from? What a set of utter prats the government are. Do they really think they can propose something like this without people saying 'hang on - you said we were broke......'

Gits.

In Belgium the (FT) maternelle systems starts at 2.5 and is FREE for all children. All childcare/activities outside of the education system are tax deductible - that includes nursery, dance classes, holiday clubs, after school care etc etc. Good for kids, good for parents.

Is he going to use my child care benefit to fund this?

It would certainly help parents that both work.. But why only 40% of 2yr olds?

Mme Lindor The German system is not that much better as there are virtually no fulltime places in state funded nurseries, there's very long queues anyway. Many mothers simply work in so called ?400 jobs which are tax free but at no decent hourly rate, as that's all what childcare allows, unless they've got wrap around childcare from grandparents.

Perhaps he'll use EMA money.

My teenager's lost £30 EMA despite coming from a low income background.

My quadriplegic nephew - more importantly - has been rationed to nappies and lost the respite care that his single father parent had relied on to get out of house every few weekends.

A few 2 year olds will get a few hours extra nursery - why, oh why - Cameron, Gideon, whoever.... Are you really living in the real world