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.

I struggled to even get 15 hours for r ds2 because the demand was so high.

This is just a election stunt. There isn't the availability here.

I disagreed with the free school meals for ks1 as well. Do they think we are so shallow that we are going to be sucked in by these whimsy promises?

Anything that supports women continuing to work if they want to gets my vote. The UK really needs to move forward in this and lags behind other countries who make it so much easier for women to return to work. I think it's a great idea, although I agree that it should be spread out to include under-threes as these childcare costs are massive.
Anything that helps women feel they have real choices is great and yes, I'm happy for my three year old to go for 30 hours a week. He adores nursery!! Not all kids in nursery are miserable ffs

Good point nameequality - I find all the parties skim over such things as term time only, only for children of working parents (both working if applicable), only for 3 & 4 year olds etc. Finding other childcare for around 12 weeks a year is no easy thing even if you might hope to cover some of that with holiday entitlement.

I do not have children but agree with Oly4 anything that helps women who want to work is good. The issue I have with it is where is the money coming from why is there no cap.There should be a cap say up to two children then if you have any more you have to pay for them. It is not fair on those who do not have children and also those who did not have these benefits in previous years and who are stuggling to live on low incomes and penisons.
We are way behind countries like denmark etc. someone needs to wake up and get it right. In prinicple I agree with children going to school/nursery early it worked for me but I know not everyone will see it this way.

I haven't RTFT but I don't believe it for a minute

IF they manage to cling on to power they'll say oops, sorry, we can't afford that after all

(rather like what happened with the Surestart centres)

they are lying bastards who will say ANYTHING to get back into power. I hate them

(could you tell?)

And reducing tax relief on pension contributions will be taking money out of the pockets of the parents in the first place.
Ridiculous.

I don't want it. My older children both struggled with full time school and very much needed an afternoon nap till then so mornings at pre school were quite enough.

It worries me that children are being forced into wraparound childcare so the government can try and force women who are on their own into work, meaning they barely spend any time with their children.

Two parents means you have a little flexibility and can arrange it so that one of you sees the children some of the time - but if you are alone, your child is never going to see you.

I think it's really unfair.

well they didn't say it was going to be compulsory

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made it compulsory in some circumstances. Then they can run about getting all surprised that people can't take it up when they can't find jobs that fit around it and pay enough to be worthwhile.

Stop fucking around with free childcare etc. Raise the minimum wage to a proper living wage (and yes, that includes parents being able to afford childcare, that's what a living wage means for the vast majority of people).

It won't be for everyone but if you're single and on benefit you will probably be forced to work ft instead of pt, place your children in care 8-6 and never see them.

I think all childcare should be tax deductible/tax break so if you’re working it should be at a minimum cost but not just nursery. So depending on the type of childcare you want babysitter afterschool nanny preschool etc. Low wage subsidized ok if you are not working no free care.

Yes, that is my fear, Psipsina (I am neither single nor on benefits of any kind, btw, but I do think that is where they are aiming and question its value).

Rather than increase the number of "free hours", any government needs to pay the going gets rate for the 15 hours currently on offer. If they don't, I can seen more and more nurseries withdrawing from the scheme as it is just not financially viable.

As a pp said, dump the childcare. Give a promise for a living wage.(I still won't believe it until it happens)

I think your headline should not have singled out one party to advertise, given the original post.

Good point, green.

I would rather nursery care got funded from 2 and half. There is no educational benefit for a child bring in nursery 30 hours a week. There is educational benefit for a two and half year old to attend nursery.

I would rather have quality hours with good ratios and well qualified staff than lots of hours of poor quality care. In an ideal world I would fund all two and half year olds for two sessions a week and over 3s have their 15 hours.

The idea of cutting tax relief on pensions is stupid. People will have nothing to live on in old age.

There are so many myths being presented as facts on this thread!

I really don't want to defend a Tory policy but...

1. A living wage won't cover ft childcare for one child let alone more so it's not a solution.

2. making childcare tax deductible doesn't work for partners who earn under the tax threshold, or students or disabled parents.

3. it is proposing that 3&4 yr olds are in nursery the same number of hours 5 year olds are in school. I don't think anyone with a school aged child "never sees them" .

4. increasing the employability of mothers will increase employment and tax revenues, thus generating growth and wealth. "Free" childcare pays for itself- there is evidence for this from the Norwegian system.

5. increasing the demand for childcare (which this will do) will increase the supply to meet demand (eventually)

6. like all manifesto 'promises' they will only be intending on rolling this out by the end of the parliament ie April 2020- plenty of time to train new workers and build new nurseries

7. it's not compulsory so if a sahm doesn't want to take up the full hours they don't have to. Countries that have higher Pisa education rankings than us often have this kind of pre school education. A good nursery education does help dcs to be more school ready and reduces inequalities. Even at age 3 there is an education gap between rich & poor kids. This policy should address part of this problem. All of society benefits from better educated children, that's why it's ethical for everyone to help fund it.

8. the childcare element of wtc is only at the very lowest income given at 70%, it is usually much lower. (It went up to 80% for a while) I do agree with increasing this to 100% with higher weekly limits and having a less sharp clawback as income rises, with a higher maximum income.the problem with this is it drives up the cost of childcare (which we have all witnessed!) A "free" allocation on the other hand encourages providers to keep costs low.

9. it will create childcare jobs, with those workers paying more tax.

It's not perfect but I think it's a real shame so many women are picking holes in it rather than seeing it as a positive move forward.

Jackie - I run a successful business which is now threatened with closure

I can't receive £3.31 an hour & pay a living or even minimum wage

So I & my employees will join the dole queue if this happens (we might anyway based on the current payments)

I do not think its the best thing for a preschooler to be in childcare for thirty hours a week at all
That's far too long at such a young age
This doesn't seem to be aimed at the best interests of the children involved

Have babies then give them to nanny state to look after so you have no influence over what Nanny says is good for your child. Get back to work slaves!

All a bit too Brave New World for me.

If you've got a child older than 3 or 4 them quite frankly their policy is useless.
They can't see further than that age bracket.
It's no good to a lone parent forced out to work when her child is 5! yes I know they're in school. But what about the holidays. Ect.
If you want to win votes Mr Cameron. Please be mindful. Every child and parent matters. Not just 3 and 4 year olds and their pArents. X

They need to stop referring to this childcare subsidy as "free childcare". It most certainly is not free! I doubt any nursery could afford to offer the "free" hours without requiring parents to take up additional hours and charging top-up fees for those, to make up the massive shortfall in funds.

If the childcare really were "free" then why is there not simply a system whereby the nurseries invoice the local authority for the fees for the "free" hours that have been accessed by their clients? What in fact happens is that the LA pays a fixed amount per hour and the nursery either makes a loss (and wouldn't be in business very long) or has to charge extra fees.

In my area the LA pays £4.15 per hour, whereas our nursery fees are over £7.00 per hour. It's ridiculous and very misleading for the politicians to describe this offer as "free childcare" when I doubt there is any nursery anywhere whose fees are fully covered by the funding and who can actually offer free sessions.

I would much prefer to see wages rise and housing costs fall so that parents could actually afford to look after their preschool children themselves.
My children are grown up now and the only regret I have is that I didn't have more time to play with them when they were little.

You never get those years back.