Fancy telling MNHQ what you think about the parties' childcare proposals?

[RowanMumsnet]

Afternoon all

You may have seen over the past couple of days that Labour and the Conservatives have made manifesto commitments on childcare in England, Wales and NI, in addition to the current 15 free hours per week for 3-4yos (and some 2yos), and the tax-free childcare scheme that will come online this autumn.

Labour has promised 25 hours per week of free childcare for working parents of 3-4yos and guaranteed wraparound childcare in primaries 8am-6pm, 'underpinned' by new National Primary Childcare Service - a not-for-profit organisation promoting the voluntary and charitable delivery of extracurricular activities.

The Conservatives have promised 30 hours per week of free childcare for working parents of 3-4yos.

The LibDem manifesto hasn't been launched yet, but it's expected to promise something along the lines of 15 hours a week for all two-year-olds (at the moment, only 40% of 2yos qualify for it) and 20 hours for all three and four-year-olds, plus 15 hours a week for all children of working parents aged between 9 months and two years. (Check against delivery, as the journos say - the LibDem manifesto will be launched tomorrow.)

The Green Party promises a 'free but voluntary universal early education and childcare service for all children from birth until compulsory education age, which we would raise to 7 years'.

UKIP don't seem to have any specific childcare proposals at the moment (but do please let us know if you know differently!)

As ever we'd welcome the input of Scottish MNers if you'd like to tell us how the Scottish government's free childcare offer is working out for you.

So what do you think of the policy offers? Are they good enough? Are the funding promises convincing? Would they make it easier for you and/or your partner to work, if that's what you'd like to do? Will they make it easier on your wallet? Do they go far enough, or too far? Are there big gaps in provision?

Would any of this sway your vote?

We're all ears.

Thanks
MNHQ

Due to my cynical nature re governments, I think they plan to scrap the current 15 free hours early years funding and lump it in with this 30 hours free child care. They have already said it will only be available where both parents are working, so SAHP's will not qualify and will therefore lose their current early years funding. My youngest starts school in September, so it won't affect me, but I'm sure it's their plan. For the record, I agree SAHPs don't need free childcare, but the current 16 hours is specifically for early years. This will go from next year I think for any family with a SAHP.

But you can pay it Diane.

I don't have a problem with helping out the lowest paid who simply can't afford childcare but really don't think we should be funding childcare for those that simply need to tighten their belts for a few years.Not really happy with seeing the NHS go down the Swanee and the poor hammered just so those that can afford their childcare have to tighten their belts less.

I'm in two minds.

On the one hand childcare is important for women to be able to be economically active, if they want to.

On the other hand I wish politicians would actually work on more radical change, that sees a valuing of mothering and a change of attitudes that results in more genuinely flexible working so rather than just sticking plastering the problem with childcare.

And I'm very fucked off with the Tories, after all the things they've cut, the dire situations they've left people in, for ideological reasons, they're now throwing out candy like this just to try and cynically win votes. They should take the money they've somehow found for this, and use it to stop cutting bloody public services.

Agree that the 'free hours' are hard to get in a good quality setting with any flexibility.
It is not really helpful to have 'free' childcare when your local authority has run out of budget for that and is not accepting any more applications, and even if they were, it would be certain hours a day, when you need something more flexible.
And when you use a private nursery, where the council is then supposed to refund the money off the fees, you can't get that money because you moved into the area after the one week a year you have to apply for the funding the following August...

The whole 'free' childcare pledge thing sets my teeth on edge - I have been a working, mostly single, mother for over a decade and the most useful thing was childcare tax credits when I used to qualify - this is what you pay therefore we will give you X amount back.

But the really most useful thing is flexible working hours; sick leave days for ill children would be also useful; and a working culture which saw that people contribute in different ways and that long hours does not equal best.

'free' childcare is just going to mean more parents are expected to work because there is free childcare available isn't there???

As others have said, these hours are not free-these figures are misleading for parents to be. Near here, the small print reads 15 free hours if you live right next to a childrens centre. Or right next to a primary school, but only from the september after they're 3, and don't expect you'll actually get in for reception. Otherwise you're left with the meagre reduction on fees a private nursery might give you- and for a worse quality provision than the state ones.

Childcare provision, free or otherwise, has absolutely no bearing on my decision about who to vote for in May, and I have two young children. I'm a lot more interested in the NHS, protection of the environment, social spending generally and I would be prepared to pay more tax, even on my well below average earnings, to help secure these.

However to answer your question, I live in Scotland. The 15 hours per week free provision has made at best a marginal impact on my finances. I need full time childcare and do not yet claim tax credits.

An hour for hour voucher scheme would be fair. On the current proposals I would actually consider voting Tory

FT WOHM with registered nanny.

It just looks like a clumsy, ill thought out attempt to buy the 'women's vote'.

From people who have no understanding if how the current system works or how (if) their proposals could be implemented.

If they want to help with childcare (as opposed to early years education) then making the entire amount payable before tax would be my preference.

I would strongly object to transferring tax allowance between couples. As I object to a married couples allowance.

Ihategeorgeosborne - I seriously hope you're wrong. I'm due my second child imminently and so will not be working for the next year. I therefore can't afford to keep DD in her private nursery (even with 'free' hours) and so will withdraw her and send her to a 9-12, 5 days a week totally free preschool. This is essential for her development and socialisation, and realistically my sanity in a year at home with a newborn. Preschools like this would not exist without the 15hrs funding.

I think people who post on here that SAHMs don't need childcare haven't thought properly about siblings, and about the value of 3+ preschool education - which has done wonders for my DD's confidence, development and ability.

Broadly speaking, nursery / childcare for under 3s = great for parents, but for over 3s it's seriously beneficial for the children. Not that politicians appear to give a flying fox what's best for children. They have to approach this from a two pronged approach, thinking about getting women back to work and also about what's best for children. If they conflate the two, it will (as it has with the 'free' hours) be a disaster.

I thought the extra hours were just for families where both parents were working and only earning minimum wage?

I agree with everything Tilder said. I feel like they've sat in a room and thought up these proposals without actually speaking to any working parents. Which is particularly ironic when you consider that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all have young children and wives who work.

Ballroom and ihategeorgeosbourne, I agree with you. Started a thread about this in chat, but no one really replied on the sahp issue. I've emailed Labour and conservatives. The reply I got from Labour refused to answer my question (no reply from Tories yet, but I'll give them more than a couple of hours!). As I see it, for many children it will be an education cut in order to facilitate a massaging of the figures.

And probably nannies, too! So they have no clue about childcare in reality.

I've used childminders, nurseries & out-of-school/holiday clubs. The best option for me, as a working parent, is the childcare voucher scheme ie tax breaks. I would prefer to see this scheme extended.

The school-nursery type model of childcare only benefits, IME, sahm's or those with grandparents. Childcare from 9-12 is incompatible with most types of work, so this model only benefits those who don't work& therefore don't need childcare.

Someone up thread mentioned sharing tax codes/allowances between couples. This would be great for us, as we've recently lost our child benefit, which has hit us really hard - our childcare bill is £800 per month for a school-age child & toddler.

The other concern I have is that I have seen many children with SN which have only been picked up on once they start nursery. Early intervention can have such a big impact and it can also have a big effect on school selection etc. What happens to these children if all this is delayed until they start school because they have only been cared for by a parent (no reflection on that parent at all, it just often takes another pair of eyes)

This doesn't affect me either, but completely wrong if a sahp is going to lose the pre school education hours.
I too agree that a sahp unless they have a child with sn does not need free childcare, but most children need a pre school education.

Ballroom, I'm a SAHM myself so I agree with you. I'm just saying what I think they will do. I know that the 15 hours currently is for early years education, but all the parties have said that they will increase the current 15 hours funding for 'child care', so they clearly don't see it like that. They have also said that it will be for families with two working parents, so I have come to the conclusion that early years funding will be abolished for families with a SAHP. I was right about cuts to child benefit and I have a hunch about this too. I just don't trust them .

School based nurseries actually benefit the children more.Ofsted has found they provide better provision and many other nurseries don't get children school ready.

Not sure Ihate as no pre- school for many would have a big impact on standards on entry at reception. There are already concerns re many children not being school ready.

My ds attends a lovely village playgroup for his early years. All of the children will go on to school with him and it is a nice community network that we have here. Both my dds attended too and loved it. However, I can see that the 3 hours every morning a few days a week wouldn't work for a working family who would need full days.

It doesn't affect me, my children are too old. We are just about to be crippled with the cost of sending DS2 to uni, but the political parties don't care about that.

I think they've all got their priorities wring, tbh. We are meant to be skint. We are being told that disabled people (me) can't have their benefits anymore. We are being told that DLA and attendance allowance is going to be taxed, 40% of carers are going to lose their carers allowance. Child poverty is going to continue to rise, the use of foodbanks is going to continue and people are still going to freeze in the Winter. Whilst we are facing massive cuts, we can't afford this, IMO.

Childminders and nannies take their charges to pre- schools.The best option imvho.A home environment coupled with a few hours quality pre-school education,even better if linked to a child's future primary school.

The thing is LePetit, I wouldn't put anything passed these people. I read an article in the paper the other day that suggested that the early years had not had the desired success they were hoping to achieve. Apparently something along the lines of middle class kids doing well at school anyway and would have done without the early years education. I was wondering then if they had something planned. Will try and find the article and link.

And what Fairy said.

Quite frankly free school meals,WFA,bus passes and help with childcare all for the wealthy when the poor and disabled are being screwed stinks.

Yes, I agree with Fairy too.

I'm so glad someone else thinks like I do, Ihategeorgeosborne. This is exactly what I think too and furthers my belief that all the parties consider young children a problem rather than an asset. They only seem to thought of as a barrier to work and economic growth rather than as, um, actual people