Ed Balls cuts school clubs

[swissarmycheese]

as part of £500m education cuts

So there it is, in black and white, in an on the record interview. How much will the extra childcare cost us?

It isn't Labour investment versus Tory cuts. It is Labour cuts, Tory cuts, or Lib Dem cuts. At least the Lib Dems and Tories have been honest about cuts from the beginning though.

Why do people trust a word Ed Balls and Labour say?

Most aren't free, I don't think, Riven - but are subsidised. It's similar to the childcare voucher scheme as an issue, I think - lots of parents for whom the financial benefit of working is marginal would be affected.

This page seems to suggest that the extended services budget is £1 billion - so this cut would represent 10 per cent. I guess the question is, which parts of the service would see the biggest cuts?

I agree policy. I don't find it expensive myself but I know people who do. 2 lots of 35 pounds a week although cheap by many peoples standards is too much already for some people. Then there is the cost of full days in the holidays.

If the cost goes up they may be better off not working. I think that would be a shame.

policywonk, this document on the link you provided

www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/13061/esp2008.pdf

shows that the extended services budget was £1.3bn, but over three years, 2008-2011. £100m a year is a 23% cut, not 10%.

'why not subsidise childcare to make it easier for everyone to work'

well in the public sector they are cutting budgets left right and centre so it makes sense for natural wastage to occur albeit in the form of people who can't afford childcare

and why should those who have no children in childcare subsidise those who do? Age old argument I know

It doesn't say that it's £100m per year though - it says 'by 2013'.

'I don't understand MmeBlueberrys point I am a tax payer and thought i was paying for my own childcare'

yes but not everyone who pays tax has kids

Yes, you might be right. It is not clear from the Times article whether the £500m is an annual departmental cut, to be achieved in full by 2013, or the sum total of the cuts up till 2013.

Fair enough, i wasn't actually saying that i had paid for my child care with my taxes though. I pay a regular amount and had not been informed that it was subsidised. I was not saying that i thought the tax payer should be paying my child care bill.

I would however be happy to pay some of my taxes to people on a lower wage that could not stay in work without that help. I would be happy to do that even if i did not have children of my own. I do understand that others may not feel the same way.

Q: Why do we subsidise childcare for people?

Because, those "people" are mainly women who, having children when their careers are at a (relatively) early stage, and thus not that well-paid, will find that, without subsidy, they are financially better off giving up work.

In the short-term, this makes sense.

However, looked at long-term, it is bad, bad, bad. The time off turns into a loooong career gap, maybe as much as 10 years. And their "careers" are shafted, basically.

With subsidy, women (and it is mainly women, because they traditionally earn less and so are the ones who give up the job if childcare is too pricey) may be able to take pat-time work (keeping a foot in the door) or f.t. work.

Their pay takes less of a hit, they stay in the labour market, they pay taxes (presumably at a higher level than those who ventured back to work after that big gap) -- and, in theory, everyone's happy.

-

I think we all knew this was on the cards. I know of a few schools that didn't bring in after-school clubs at all because it would have left them with white elephant buildings when the subsidies were withdrawn.

You don't pay tax into a pot just for your own immediate benefit but to create a fair society from which indirectly we all benefit.

If you need subsidised childcare, then you are already received tax credits. Your life is already being heartily subsidised.

There are too many people here who just don't want to pay anything for their children. They resent school visits and other enrichment. They resent everything.

If you can't afford to care for a child, don't have any!

I don't want to live in a society where only the rich can have children.

As a family unit we earn in excess of £70K a year so can live comfortably without state help. That said we only have one child. I woudl hate for people with an income of less than mine to be denied the right to have children.

But that should be taken care of by social services, not by the education budget, Riven.

I don't think only the rich should have children, TSP. But I expect that everyone who does should be willing to make a contribution towards them. Why should the taxpayer keep funding them - aren't tax credits enough?

If everything is always handed on a plate there will never be any incentive to take personal responsibility. The 'someone else will pay' mentality will come back to bite them when 'someone else' disappears.

Those who bleat on about community are, funnily enough, the receivers. They aren't the ones who have to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets.

"If you can't afford to care for a child, don't have any! "

Like this you mean?;

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255881/Labour-women-MPs-demand-Pay-childcare-bills-pay-rise-100-00 0-year.html

Labour, the party of the people? I think not darling.

here's an idea

lol at culling children. I think animula puts it very well.

I often bleat about community and happily pay my tax and then donate a further percentage to local charities and schools. I am not sure if I am enbtitled to tax credits but don't claim them or my child benefit.

It may suit you to think the only people who care about community are those who benefit but that is not the case IME.

"If you need subsidised childcare, then you are already received tax credits. Your life is already being heartily subsidised.

There are too many people here who just don't want to pay anything for their children. They resent school visits and other enrichment. They resent everything.

If you can't afford to care for a child, don't have any!"

Totally agree MmeBlueberry. Personal responsibility for having children seems to have passed many by.

Those on low incomes get CTC assistance to pay for childcare so there is absolutely no need for the government and tax payers to fund afterschool clubs.

He has some good savings planned though, most of which wont directly affect the children. IT can always be changed for the better and if the TV channel can be interent based its still there for those that want it but at a great cost saving.

A lot of changes will come in regardless of whether Labour or the Tories get in. Both will have to make cuts and the benefits system should be the first point of call. Allowing people to not work or to work the bare minimum is only going to make the countries problems worse.

Yes, some children will go on to be tax payers and pay towards pensions etc but the majority of children who grow up on benefits go on to claim themselves so wont be putting anything into the system.

"But that should be taken care of by social services, not by the education budget"

Really? Social Services should get involved with me because I find Childcare costs difficult?
Or should I not have had DD given that I didn't know what would happen with her father and I in the future.
Oops, that's everyone then as no one knows what will happen.
Just kids born to those who can support themselves and any children and not be financially dependent on their partner, ever.

Is that what you are saying?

Because if DD's Dad had paid then there would be no financial difficultly and no claiming any sort of extra benefit, just the CB that all parents are entitled to.

Ed Balls/the government should never have promoted or even acknowledged these clubs as a form of childcare. They were not set up as childcare and should never have been viewed as such. The govt were irresponsible.

Only you can answer those questions, MW.