What could the Government do to support families where one parents wants to stay at home?

[puddle]

This has been mentioned on the thread about 'wraparound' school hours. Many posters are saying it's a good idea as long as it is coupled with Government support for families that want to have one person working and the other at home.

What kind of support do people mean and how would it make a difference? What can the Government really do to make being at home a viable option for families?

[Tortington]

fio2 - working class families had parents who both had to work out of necessity.

how does this liberal guardianista pinko liberal laura ashley ideal sit with those more blue mnetters who think that poor people only have babies cos hey can't be arsed to work - wouldn't you just be giving them more money to buy their fags and crack cocaine and broken cars that are being done up in the driveway?

or should this just apply to the more mummy elite who should get paid becuase they read to their kids and do papier mache instead of watching eastenders?

[Tortington]

that should read working class families have always had

[flashingnose]

But didn't working class families also have umpteen relations living locally to look after the kids?

[Tortington]

traditionally at the turn of the century they were kep in the basement of cotton mills and given opium to keep them asleep -thats for industrialised areas, however in more rual areas i tnk the elderly would have ben given this responsability.

so no....its not like am taking my kids to my sisters down the street - its was the choice of an old hag or opium - harly child stimulating stuff

[Blu]

Custardo, obviously there would be a papier mache exchange system. A £5 voucher for baby einstein toys and a packet of organic rice cakes in return for a papier mache pheasant. Otherwise there could be terrible abuse of the system, as you point out.

[Tortington]

blu - that as you well know would cause a black market in papier mache. as those benefit claiming lazy arses will have to get their papier mache from somewhere, so it will be criven underground and the profits will go to the russian mafia

[Prufrock]

Custy - yeah of course you'll get some people who keep on having kids so that they have one under five and can claim - but IMHO anyone who is willing to have another toddler to get a few hundred quid a month bloody deserves the money - or sectioning

[Blu]

You're right.
Actually, I think patricia hodge's proposal for HV's to dispense opium to children of working mothers (sic) ony means that the opium will end up fuelling the black marhet in papier mache pheasants, or being sold to unemployed youths in hoodies.

Seriously, is this AT ALL on the gvts agenda? I thought that the main purpose behind 'family friendly' working practices was to keep as many parents as possible in the job market, which fuels a strong economy (inc high house prices) etc etc.

[puddle]

Just come back to this thread! Very funny post custardo. It's been interesting reading.

I started the thread because in all the threads about working vs staying at home this seems to be raised as an issue ie the Government are doing lots to encourage us to get back innto the workplace and they should be balancing it with support for those who choose to stay at home. I have never been able to think of how that might work in practice and, despite the many ideas on this thread, I still can't.

[Prufrock]

No it isn't Blu - but it is on "our" governments agenda - you know the one whereyou are PM, custy is chancellor, I'm DWP. We could have Lav as minister for rural affairs.....

[Blu]

Not if she's goping to shoot the bloody papier mache pheasants, we couldn't!

[TwinSetAndPearls]

I don't often agree with Custardo, being one of her pinko guardianista laura ashley ( well more boden actually) paper mache wearing types but she has a point.

As a SAHM I can see the benefits that my daughter has got from me being at home, I am deeply worried by our trend in society to hand our children over to the state from breakfast until tea time - if not later, it is all very Orwellian. WE send our children to school far earlier than most other countries and now we want them to stop their longer, not in the name of education but wealth creation. I think the government should be doing more to enable a parent to stop at home if they wish - but how to do this is so problematic.

I have often thought like flashingnose that we could rework the tax credits system so everyone got a payment and it was up to you if you wanted to spend it on childcare or assisting a parent to stop at home.

But I know lots of parents who quite frankly are just crap and there parenting borders on abuse, I am aware that I have a very rose tinted view of what parenting is and assume that all parents raise their children in a similar way to myself - but they don't and the state paying families to provide a crap childhood is a road nobody wants to go down. I suppose we could go back to the nineteenth century and parenting classes ( another idea new labour has knicked) but then the state is still ruling our homes, telling us how to raise our children which isn't much better than the children's centres being planned at the moment.

I have been fortunate enough to go bonkers a few years ago enabling me to claim sickness benefits that could enable me to stop at home without living in absolute poverty, not everyone is this lucky I was then able to ensnare a man who could support my daughter and myself but we have had to make a lot of sacrifices and the pot is now empty. The word pension sends shovers down my spine. I am now registering as a childminder so I can remain at home for a few more years. Childminding in our local area is presented as a way off benefits for SAHM which although fine and admirable in many cases has also resulted the most unsuitable people becoming childminders just because it suits the government aim of cheap childcare and less people relying on benefits.

Maybe there isn't an answer to this problem maybe SAHMdom is going to remain the privelidge of the mad, poor and wealthy!

[Caligula]

Great post TSaP - remind me to go mad!

I think the fact that there are a minority of loonies who parent badly (and possibly dress badly too) is a bit of a red herring. You could make the same argument about child benefit - why not abolish it, because some parents are rubbish at parenting? In fact, you could make it of practically any institution you like. Why not abolish free universal education because some kids won't do their homework? Why not abolish the NHS because some people insist on smoking, eating fatty food and not exercise? Why not abolish income support, because some people will cheat? I don't think you can organise society from the starting point that a minority are always going to abuse things which are laid out for the good of the majority - of society as a whole.

[milward]

Give sahm's a sahd's a break from looking after their kids - just like when at work you get a lunch break etc!!! I have no family to support me looking after my kids. My dh does a great job but works long hours so I'm in the frontline most of the time. We couldn't get any places at childminders as I don't work. We had to find the cash to pay for a private school that looks after kids from 18 months as I just needed to have a short break. My dd goes 4 mornings a week & I can see how much she enjoys this.

[wordsmith]

Personally I think tax allowances should be transferrable when you have children, so if one parent wants to stay at home the family will automatically be about £4.5K better off.

It's just not good enough to say, GDG, that we chose to have children therefore we should not expect any help looking after them. Quite honestly that's only an argument that those on reasonable incomes without crippling mortgages can afford to make. It may be idealistically pure but practically it would mean that fewer people would have children, and in 20 or so years time there would be fewer to pay tax and fund pensions, social services etc for people like us now!

I think the answer to the questions is "I wouldn't start from here!" - it's not just the government but employers and society as a whole which needs to radically change if we are to start seeing parents and families valued. I think the government has done a lot already through the tax credits system. Yes of course more could be done (ie the transferrable tax allowance) and I'm sure we'll get there eventually...

And again, personally speaking, I don't think the ideal should be for one parent to stay at home, but for both parents to be able to work part-time or more flexibly and be treated as a family unit rather than just a breadwinner and a dependent. I think it would provide a more balanced home life, set a healthier example to our children (boys and girls) and stop some people implying that higher education and good careers for girls are a waste of time if "all they're going to do is get married and have children" - a viewpoint commonly expressed by some employers!

[serenity]

I like the idea of transferring tax allowances. If we could do that I could give up my evening job, and be a 'proper' SAHM rather than an incredibly knackered SAHM whose too tired to do all the things she wants to do.

I get irritated with the fact that I can claim money so that someone else can look after my children, but I can't just pay it to myself to look after them, if that makes any sense?

[Chuffed]

serenity your last sentence hit the nail on the head!

[Tortington]

lol pru - you're probably right.

blu- by my reckoning at papier mache pheasants having a value of £5 each you could get a packet of ciggies for that - OR we could just pay poor people in ciggies we could introduce the ciggie living allowence (CLA)

[zebraZ]

wordsmith (do you feel important, dear? ) pointed out flexitime... right now I work flexitime which is a Godsend to me... If one of my children is ill on my usual workday, I can just work my hours another day. I don't see how Wrap-Around childcare (thru the school) will help -- presumably they won't take ill children. And yes I would send my ill child to childminder if CM and child didn't mind, but then sometimes the childminder or one of her own children is ill, and I have to shift my hours around again.

Honestly, when my current job finishes I don't see how I will get any other work (other than selling things, and I don't do selling) that really fits with childcare.

Otherwise, bizarrely enough, I agreed with Gobblidigook... I don't feel comfortable about the govt. "encouraging" one parent to stay at home particularly (or not). I would prefer not to have such targetted interference.

[wordsmith]

Zebra!!! Hi!

[Prufrock]

But zebra - the govt is encouraging parents to go out to work, thereby diminishing the full time childcarer role. They are already targeting quite effectively

[Caligula]

Quite right Prufrock.

I recently totted up my latest tax credits and worked out that the level of government subsidy I receive for working, has now equalled the amount I would receive if I were on the dole.

In August, when DD will go one extra day to nursery, the tax credit I receive will actually come to more than the dole.

Meaning that it is more expensive for the taxpayer to keep me working and my DD in nursery, than it is to allow me to claim income support and look after my own child. That's pretty effective targetting and a pretty clear message.

[Orinoco]

Message withdrawn