Conservatives announce 30 hours free childcare per week - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

In a speech this morning, David Cameron is due to announce 600,000 new free childcare places, and a doubling of free childcare hours from 15 to 30 for three- and four-year-olds from 2017, funded by reducing tax relief on pensions contributions.

Labour have promised 25 free hours a week, and to guarantee wraparound childcare from 8am to 6pm for primary school children. The Lib Dems will extend existing provision for three- and four-year-olds to 20 hours a week, and will also offer 15 hours a week to all two-year-olds.

We'd love to know what you think about it all - do share your thoughts below.

My immediate reaction to the Tory plan is to wonder which poor bastards they're stealing money from now to pay for this. You can guarantee it's going to be some dreadful undeserving layabout of a disabled person or something.

The only part of this I consider really sensible is the wraparound care at every primary school (though that still leaves the problem of the school holidays).

I think we are "I'll give you a pony!" stage of election promises.

There isn't the infrastructure or the strained staff to currently provide this, and it will be one of those things (like the "free lunches in primary" thing) which will be implemented in a hurry when it would be better to implement it well.

I think it's a superb thing. A really superb thing. Some of the comments on here are thoroughly miserable. It's almost as though dyed in the wool left-wingers don't want other political parties proposing progressive policies.

So they've taken away child benefit from higher rate earners and now they're giving those same people an 30 hours of free childcare per week. Someone needs to explain the logic of this, because I'm buggered if I can work it out.

If they want to expand childcare why don't they do it in the form of vouchers for people who are actually working? Why do SAHPs like me need 30 hours of free childcare? Its ludicrous and a waste of money. And do we really want all these 3-year-old who don't need to be in childcare in it? Is that going to help the country? No.

I've always voted Conservative and until recently I had every intention of doing so again. Now I'm not so sure. All these stupid, last minute, desperate pleas to get more votes (the 'right to buy' scheme is another), are really, really pissing me off.

I think these are all great proposals. I don't believe for a minute that any of them can be delivered. The Tories aren't even managing to deliver the current 15 hours free to every child.

When the government money is there and can be relied upon "built it an they'll come" - as evidenced by in 2010 few in the Private Sector were building homes until Osborne cleared the bank mortgage offer log jam, lowered the costs of businesses, and stimulated mortgage offers for those that had a 10% deposit and over (plus the salary to support the mortgage), but couldn't get a loan.

The OBR is basing current spending projections with the assumption that the economy will be growing at around 2.5%, when it is currently growing at 2.8% and private economists (as well as the IMF) believe that we should grow at least at 2.8% for the next few years IF we stay as we are - so funding will be there.

If the economy after 2015 is hit with numerous tax rises and private sector investment shrinks, all bets are off, not just on recent promised 'freebees', or all government departmental budgets - but many private sector jobs REQUIRING child care as well.

As to "which poor bastard" would pay for it, well going back to 2010, EVERYBODY.

Allowing people to work is hugely beneficial for the economy. If that's what parents want to do then it is right that the government should assist them all they can. Why must we live in a world where balancing child-rearing and work has to be incredibly tough? When I decided to have a baby I didn't do it so I could have some kind of martyr status.

It may not be everyone's wish to send their child to nursery for 30 hours a week, but no-one is forcing you to do that. To say it is wrong to do so though is deeply unhelpful. Everyone's situation is different and what these new proposals do is to allow people more choice and flexibility.

But the point is that there simply isn't the infrastructure to support any of these proposals. There are not enough trained childcare workers, in some places there are not enough suitable buildings, and there has never been free childcare for those with severely disabled children.

If there is to be a national policy of 100% of DC attending some form of institutional care from the age of three, then it needs to be some form of schooling in a properly regulated setting with places for all, not the hazardous mishmash it is now.

There isn't a 1,000 nurses that can be pulled out of a hat by writing a letter, but I'd suggest that the private sector is supported not hammered, they have more chance of delivering.

So in the City I live in, the Local Authority has been giving grants to nurseries to do building work, as there are not enough places existing to fulfill the current 15 hours free. There is no way the 30 hours free could be met.
I think this is one of those "great ideas" politicians have, without actually looking at if and how it will be delivered.

These things are rarely well thought out - stopping child benefit if one parents earns over £50,000 pay but if both earn £45,000 they still get it? That was never fair! Then giving free school dinners to all year one and two school children at a cost that must have been millions, non means tested just after removing child benefit!! It's all madness. I fail to see how they will pay for all this in reality without really reducing the pay of the poor nursery workers and the reduction in standards at nurseries. The free hours given already do not actually cover the cost of the child care - most childminders and nurseries are already losing out. I'm taking it all with a pinch of salt.

Isitmebut - There is not the money available for the private sector to be interested in providing 30 hours free childcare. Lots of people have already posted on this thread about how nurseries and childminders are subsidising the current 15 hours free.

Are there people actually foolish enough to believe them?!?

Locally, getting a nursery spot or a place with a childminder is a real struggle. I can't imagine there are enough places to increase it!! Will this mean changing the ratio? I can't see that as a good idea.

Do they think nursery places grow on trees and are widely available?

I would love for this to happen don't get me wrong.

But free hours are not covering the cost of private sector childcare provision at all so many will not offer it.

That's why I am cynical. Why not just do a straight subsidy? They manage it for the museums and galleries for example!

As my children are over 20 years old and not a whiff of offspring, I'm not going into this to deep (selfish or what) .... but below in the plan/funding, and a few counters.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32407934
"Under the £350m Conservative plans, the amount of state-subsidised childcare for three and four year-olds would be doubled to 30 hours a week."

"The Conservatives said the 30-hour offer from 2017, announced a week ago, would result in more than 600,000 extra 15-hour free childcare places every year."

"They said the proposal would be funded by reducing tax relief on pension contributions."

"A Conservative government would expand on the changes made in the last Parliament, Mr Cameron said."

"If you're a working parent with one child you can rest assured that by the time they're three they'll be able to go to nursery for 30 hours a week completely free," Mr Cameron said."

"And we have legislated also for tax free childcare for anything outside that - so if you spend ten thousand pounds on childcare you'll get two thousand pounds back for each child."

All I'd say is if I had to count on a government to deliver on spending promises, I'd go with the one that has proven to deliver SUSTAINABLE private sector growth, by working WITH THEM, not threatening them at every turn.

And although I swear I'll throw something at the TV is I hear "the long term economic plan" ONE more time, at least THEY had one, it was clear after 13-years, Labour was at the end of theirs. IMO.

Woo! Taxing the working generation and giving some of the proceeds back to us. Why is it always the under 60s that have to pay for the election bribes?

Isitmebut - But the Tories have not even delivered on the 15 hours free childcare? Why would anyone believe they can just double it? The answer is, they can't.

Isitmebut - But the Tories have not even delivered on the 15 hours free childcare? Why would anyone believe they can just double it? The answer is, they can't.

Hear hear!

Here's a radical idea - why don't they offer parents of young children some sort of tax break? They can then choose who will take it and leave it up to the family to decide whether to use the saving to both work or to enable one of them to stay at home.
I don't understand the clamour to get both parents back at work and the baby in childcare asap.

I noticed the Tory proposal for 30 hrs for 3 & 4 yr olds was for children of working parents, and I think I read somewhere that both parents should already be working at least 8 hrs a week before they would qualify? So eg. a mother wouldn't be able to access this in order to do further training towards returning to work, or to look for work, which I think is a shame (and narrows the extent, and cost, of the offer considerably)

I wonder if different proposals eg 25 hrs from Labour come with similar strings attached or not? As someone said the devil may be in the detail?
Have a feeling Labour may be offering 25 hrs for all 3 & 4 yr olds? (But could be wrong on that)

It doesn't matter the detail, none of them can meet what they are offering. Each will be quietly shelved depending on who is elected.

I think the wrap-around childcare for primary children from 8am to 6pm is a decent offer from Labour. I'd have found that very helpful and encouraging if it'd been offered in my DC's primary

They can't deliver the 15hour that are now in existance - not sure where they think all these places are going to come from, even if parents wanted their dc in Nursery for 30 hours a week.

First they need to properly fund the places they currently "buy", rather than just giving 1/2 the hourly rate the Nurseries usually charge, like they do now - then maybe the other hours working parents need to use wouldn't be so expensive as they wouldn't be subsidising the 15 hrs free education.

Then they need to think about providing proper support for the dc with special needs, or the dc who have had such horrific backgrounds they just aren't able to cope with a 1:4 or 1:8 ratio at that time in their lives, let alone the Nurseries having to cover staff to attend all the fCAFs, Children in Need, Child Protection meetings, etc.,etc.

Once they've actually sorted out the 15 hours, then they can ask if parents would want the 30, otherwise it's just a pie in the sky 'floating pig' promise.

Is this for 39 weeks of the year? If so and someone has 5 weeks holiday it leaves a shortfall of 7 weeks....

Presumably it should be described as term time childcare?