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.

Yes I really hate the implication that all we want is 'childcare' when it's often by some low experience teenager in a hideous setting.

No regard for the welfare of children at all, no regard for the fact children are better off with a parent (unless abusive/neglectful/unable to care for the child properly)

Yes people want to work but often they want to have 4 or 5 years of enjoyment from their children before they consign them to someone else's care.

It makes me really sad.

It's utter bollocks though, isn't it? It is not childcare, it is Nursery Education and it is funded at such a woefully inadequate rate that it isn't accessible to a large number of children. Every time "free childcare" is quoted on the news I shout angrily IT IS NOT CHILDCARE AND IT IS NOT FREE.
The funding rate here is so poor our CM (who looked into taking NEG funding) decided she couldn't afford to be part of the scheme: it effectively requires her to fund about 20% of the cost. Nurseries get around it by implementing weird rules about what hours you can use the NEG for and charging over the odds for the other hours, it is the only way they can get it to make financial sense. Nurseries have more kids so can spread the risk in a way CMs can't.

So this leaves my kids in a position where they can't access the "free childcare" (ha ha ha) because there are very few settings offering it round here, understandably.

I would like to see the system reformed such that it is provided as a sum of money rather than a number of hours: this would be fairer and allow all kids to use it in a way that is suitable for their families.

I would love to see the statistics on current NEG takeup . I bet it is low and the gov probably want to keep it that way. So they can keep mouthing off about how much "free childcare" they are providing while not actually providing it at all.

BLOODY LIARS

It's utter bollocks though, isn't it? It is not childcare, it is Nursery Education and it is funded at such a woefully inadequate rate that it isn't accessible to a large number of children. Every time "free childcare" is quoted on the news I shout angrily IT IS NOT CHILDCARE AND IT IS NOT FREE.
The funding rate here is so poor our CM (who looked into taking NEG funding) decided she couldn't afford to be part of the scheme: it effectively requires her to fund about 20% of the cost. Nurseries get around it by implementing weird rules about what hours you can use the NEG for and charging over the odds for the other hours, it is the only way they can get it to make financial sense. Nurseries have more kids so can spread the risk in a way CMs can't.

So this leaves my kids in a position where they can't access the "free childcare" (ha ha ha) because there are very few settings offering it round here, understandably.

I would like to see the system reformed such that it is provided as a sum of money rather than a number of hours: this would be fairer and allow all kids to use it in a way that is suitable for their families.

I would love to see the statistics on current NEG takeup . I bet it is low and the gov probably want to keep it that way. So they can keep mouthing off about how much "free childcare" they are providing while not actually providing it at all.

BLOODY LIARS

oops sorry so angry I posted twice

Slightly off track but it reminds me of the 'milk tokens' that you can't use at market stalls or cheap fruit and veg shops/independent shops, well, you never could at least, I think now they are allowed to register to accept them but I have never seen a place that has.

And using them at the supermarket is fraught with shame and embarrassment and someone being called over to go through your entire shopping receipt and check you aren't using too many, while a queue builds up behind you.

It's like 'hey this is free' but it isn't really at all.

It's also highly misleading for new parents who believe the politicians' bullshit. When childcare costs were crippling me as a new parent I was thinking "but it will get better when DC is 3 and we can get 15hrs free". It's only when you get there you find out it is a load of crap and you can't have it at all.

What angers me most about the sudden promise of 30 free hours is that it's the cuts in budgets and funding by the current Government that have made childcare costs so unaffordable for many and has made the current "free" entitlement a hollow joke to childcare providers.

The free entitlement for 15 hours really was free when it was first introduced by the previous Government. It was a bit higher than our fee to reflect the extra work we did in order to provide it - I can only speak for childminders, by the way.

Since then, rules have been introduced to ensure that parents get their hours completely free at the point of delivery. Fair enough - but the funding has been eroded to the point where nurseries and childminders can't afford to offer it. At the same time, training bursaries, support, grants and funding have all been cut for all Early Years providers and costs have risen. Help for parents, such as tax credits, have been cut.

This Government is responsible for the high cost of childcare - and now they are promising to double the free hours without telling us how they plan to fund it. No wonder the Early Years sector are alarmed!

Isitmebut tells us to trust the Party that listens to us and does not threaten us. If only he knew! That Party is categorically NOT the Conservative party so far as Early Years is concerned: they have forced through their More Great Childcare proposals and ignored practitioners, childcare experts - even parents - who tried to tell them what would work and what would not.
They ignored Cathy Nutbrown's report and her recommendations. It was Nick Clegg who intervened regarding the ratios: despite widespread protest, the Conservatives were insisting on going ahead with it. They wasted an absolute fortune introducing childminder agencies, in spite of being told that is not what childminders wanted or needed, and they are still trying to get them adopted even though they have proven to be so unpopular.

I'm sure the nurseries can add to the list. This Government wants children from the age of 2 in schools with higher adult:child ratios. We have all told them till we're blue in the face that this is NOT good for the children, but they won't listen to us.

Now there's an election looming, suddenly they can offer 30 free hours to parents. How are they going to do that? Their track record so far is extremely worrying.

There is a single preschool that manages to operate round here on the NEG funding. I suspect it relies heavily on parental fundraising, it is in an extremely affluent area. It only runs 9.30 -11.30 am so the only families who benefit are those with a SAHP. Great, we have a system that provides free childcare only to the people who don't actually need it. [hmmm]

i mean

Same old.
This is no different to the LD and Labour promises on related issues. They are all designed to buy votes and will be lost in the coalition scramble after the election.
I hope no-one votes on the basis of these empty gestures.
You need to vote on the basis of the parties' general philosophy and what they have previously done.

I don't doubt that election promises are made and broken by all parties.

However, it's worth pointing out that this particular one - free childcare, or education for the Early Years - is a little different because it was introduced by Labour as part of their Early Years policy. In other words, they've already brought in truly free hours for parents.
They have also been promising to extend those free hours to 10 sessions a week (20 hours) since they were last in power. In other words, their promise is not a desperate afterthought designed to chase votes.

Whether they will be able to afford it this time around remains to be seen - always supposing they get the chance to implement it, of course

Tanith … regarding your ”Isitmebut tells us to trust the Party that listens to us and does not threaten us. If only he knew! That Party is categorically NOT the Conservative party”

The glaring problem with that view is that on and before the 2010 General Election Labour refused to tell you where their cuts to their £153 billion annual budget deficit/overspend were coming down on so where is the comparison – but a man of integrity, tried to tell you that they were coming.

March 2010; ”Alistair Darling:we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

So in trying to decide who can be MORE trusted (clearly from a pretty low expectation base) listen to the Labour Party’s rhetoric on Conservative ‘draconian cuts on ‘the poor’ now, with what they say before a General Election when in a moment of honesty, they start to understand the enormity of the annual budget deficit/overspend they left the UK, for someone else to sort out.

The first one from the man who left the note in the Treasury; ‘the money has all gone’.

August 2013; “Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/21/labour-to-cut-benefits-bill-2015

”Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday”

”Liam Byrne, a Labour frontbencher, said the coalition's welfare reforms were failing to cut costs enough, and called for cross-party talks to "save" some of the government's key schemes.”

October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”

And in another rare moment of honesty, they even critically revue their own 13-year record on educating our children, when in the first decade before the crash, money was NO object.
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labour-admits-great-crime-on-education-tristram-hunt-says-his-party-encouraged-schools-to-aim-too-low--and-pupils-paid-the-price-9053693.html

Isitmebut, we are talking about the Early Years.

Our experience is that the last Labour Government put this very high on their list of priorities. Indeed, prior to 1997, there was no such definition at all. Surestart, Birth to Three Matters, the Foundation Stage, EYFS, Children's Centres, Every Child Matters - all introduced by the last Government.

They may have made mistakes and got things wrong, but they were willing to consult and to listen.

Our experience of the current Government is that they don't listen to the Early Years practitioners, to the Early Years experts - even to parents. Theirs is a policy of dismantling Early Years provision and cutting funding. It's a policy of ignoring advice and arrogantly going ahead with policies that do not work. They have money to waste on these policies but won't adequately fund what is already established.
I'm amazed they are even mentioning Early Years in the run-up to the Election because, in the last 5 years, they have been a disastrous failure of chronic underfunding and arrogance.

You very clearly know as little as they do about the Early Years and so you are trying to divert the debate onto other areas.

Tanith..… due to the age of my children and lack of ‘working’ knowledge, I respectfully acknowledge your (and everyone elses) in depth acknowledge of Early Years on this board, and clearly not everyone agrees with your analysis

However apart from specific policy detail, without a 5-year start comparison, trust and other ‘issues’ including financial, have reared their head within the discussion, which I have tried to address.

So also with respect, the Conservative coalition appearing to ‘not listen’ may or may not be influenced by overall lack of money in adopting a policy of trying to get the county to live within our means.

But I’d argue that for years there were hundreds of posts on here criticising the coalition’s 'different' policies on education, as if there were no ‘end product’ problems e.g. as 16-24 year old unemployment numbers were trending up for years before the crash – so maybe “chronic arrogance” especially if politically motivated to 'oppose every thing', may not entirely be a Conservative Party issue.

IsItMeBut - If this was about money, but the Tories really did understand early years, then they would try and fix the current provision so parents did actually get 15 hours free a week. They don''t, so they are making promises about 30 hours free that can't be delivered.
People will rightly judge parties on what they actually deliver, not what they promise. The Tories are not delivering on 15 hours free provision.

I agree wholeheartedly that the increased childcare should be for parents that need it because they work. I don't understand the huge amount of children for pre-school age children who have a parent or sometimes two at home.
However it is complicated. I have a friend - a lovely mum who adores her children and is a great parent to them. She can't work as she doesn't have any qualifications, experience, transport or most importantly childcare the other hours. Her circumstances mean that she gets extra funding for the two two-year old children to go nursery 15 hours a week. And she just sits at home for those 15 hours. She doesn't need those 15 hours. The children are perfectly happy and cared for at home and they are only two. But she has it so she uses it and gets bored in the meantime. However is it right to say that only children who's parents are wealthy enough or working can have nursery spaces? It's logical and makes finanicial sense but it seems unfair. But then paying for nursery spaces out of public money whilst parent's sit at home having a break for 15 hours a week seems ridiculous.

I repeat, I fully admit I have no 'working' knowledge of the current situation.

However isn't this policy target for after 2017?

It would be a tough audience not to admit the deliverable difference of being out of office for 13-years, inheriting financial and other 'not fit for purpose' issues in virtually every government department, and starting from reform scratch within all those departments - to having 5-years in government experience behind them, and getting on with the job after May 7th.

In May 2010 there were no revised budgets/policies in place to reduce the (then) £153 bil government overspend, yet we were told by Labour that they were going to HALF that deficit (as the Coalition has done and reduced taxes) - with no plans to get the UK back on its employment feet and address the fall in real earnings that began in 2008.

So I'd strongly argue that on the 'big picture' the coalition has delivered, and if people think a political party with 13-years in government behind them should get brownie points for doing nothing, not promising a thing - so putting their head in the sand, so be it.

IsItMeBut - Except this isn't a thraed about which political party is best. It is a thraed about a specific election promise. You are obviously a supporter of the Conservatives and simply don't like that poster after poster is saying that this election promise is bullshit.

lucycant .... you are correct, but it is a whole thread ABOUT a Conservative policy, that many posters for several reason or another, do not want to give any benefit of doubt it will be delivered, or accept any reasons why there may have been 'no inherited rose garden' problems in delivering what they had previously offered - so I will butt out having given my opinion, enjoy.

Given that the Tories haven't improved the amounts to childcare providers under the existing policy of 15 hours free, why would they change it for 30 hours free? It would make things worse for childcare providers and ultimately the children as costs are cut to the bone which is the Tory approach as they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing

IsItMeBut - A number of posters have explained why the 15 hours free is not currently being delivered. If they can't afford to deliver it fully, then it is stupid to promise 30 hours free.

lucycant .... as mean posters (sob) don't want my general opinion (lol), I'm trying to get my overly large butt to 'butt out' of this thread, but I doubt any failure to deliver is about 'affordability' - as for the past 5-years the Conservative coalition has 'adapted' their annual overspend reduction targets to needs.

Going forward, if anyone accepts the truth that in a UK economy spending several hundred £billion a year it mainly depends on the private sector economy to finance it - I'd suggest that the party that can work with the private sector to expand those tax receipts, rather than try 1970 type State controls to tax a private sector/economy to an equally SUSTAINABLE growth - I'd worry more on what Labour will be able to 'afford' over the next 5-years.

Please may I leave now, miss?

IsItMeBut - Posters have already explained many times why the Tories are failing to deliver on 15 hours free. They reduced the amount paid per child per hour, so that it was simply unrealistic to provide care at that cost. So there are not enough places.
That either means, the 15 hours free is unaffordable - in which case why are they making promises of 30 hours free?
Or that they do not understand the cost of delivering care to 3 year olds and have not listened to anyone who does.

I know you want to make this whole thread into a labour v tories. It is not about that. There will be people on here who support some tory and some labour policies.
This thread is ONLY about the childcare election promises. So please stop trying to derail it.

I'll take that as a .... 'yes, you may'.

The free 15 hrs were never intended to be "free childcare". The scheme is called the Nursery Education Grant and was intended to ensure that all 3 and 4 yr olds had the opportunity to attend an EYFS setting so that they were better prepared for school, as it had previously been observed that kids who had not had this opportunity did not do as well at school. (This is my understanding anyway)
I have always been told the NEG exists for the benefit of the kids, not the parents, so to call it "free childcare" is missing the point entirely.

Obviously I completely agree there are many reasons why free or lower cost childcare is also very useful, but the reasoning is not the same as the original reasons behind the NEG.

The message of "free childcare" is a huge distortion of the original intent and the current experience of many families. To hear it banded about by politicians of all sides right now as a key election "promise" makes me livid