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

The political parties are effectively removing choice for parents. They are offering subsidised childcare in a very specific setting for parents who both work making it almost impossible for parents to afford to care for their own children. The system is so stacked against the model of the parent staying at home that it is being regarded as a luxury for yummy mummies, rather than a choice that could be afforded if our tax system was fairer. Although the proposal is to make it easier for 3 and 4year olds to have subsidised care what about babies and 1 or 2 yr olds who need more personal care, one to one or one to two ratios?

Why is every other form of care including care by grandparents being thought about except care by the parents themselves? Is this so wrong? Do we not trust parents any more to bring up their own children? Is it so unfashionable to want to care?

If a main earner tries to increase his income to support his family he is currently being penalised by so high tax rates that for every extra £1 he earns he may only bring home 23p of it! This is because he loses tax credits as he earns more. There is no choice but to send the mother to work too. Only she too will also lose tax credits as she works. No party is telling parents that they will be no better off by working but we are pouring money into childcare nevertheless and making mothers work with no care for the consequences of our children.

The political parties are effectively removing choice for parents. They are offering subsidised childcare in a very specific setting for parents who both work making it almost impossible for parents to afford to care for their own children. The system is so stacked against the model of the parent staying at home that it is being regarded as a luxury for yummy mummies, rather than a choice that could be afforded if our tax system was fairer.
Absolutely.

I would add by skewing the system so much in favour of those who do not take career breaks to raise their DCs it makes it that much harder to argue for flexible working / job share etc. It also makes it nigh on impossible to return to the work place if you do take time out.
In a Nation with the issues surrounding youth unemployment we have and where we aspire to keep working into our late 60s it seems counterintuitive to push people with child rearing and other home responsibilities into work.

What dragdownthemoon and annefennell said.

Where in any of this are the parties talking about what is best for the children? There is a clear clash between the economic model and the child-centred one. Both hugely important. Let us have a more nuanced discussion leading to more creative solutions to these problems, preferably ones that don't ignore the needs of the children, or the valuable role that women play in contributing to the economy - through both paid and unpaid contribution.

Societal encouragement of flexible working practice for mothers and recognition of the actual needs of children is my ideal.

But I can probably dream on...

With more women and older people working, where are all these volunteers going to come from? Traditionally volunteers have been SAHM with older children, retired people who are healthy and fit, and unemployed people. If you get everyone back to work, the only people volunteering a lot of hours every week, will be well off SAHPs living in wealthy areas.

They can offer all the 'free' hours they like, the places aren't available, at least not near me. Preschool here has a long waiting list, admissions criteria and is only staying afloat financially due to crazy amounts of fundraising as the pitiful hourly rate paid for funded children doesn't cover all the costs for the setting. Other preschools nearby have closed completely for this reason, or are now limiting the number of funded places available as they need the higher hourly rate they can charge to non-funded kids. Certainly within our council setting we cannot charge top up fees for funded kids, the place must be free. If you got 30 hours per week, only 16 children could attend. So waiting lists get even longer, parents end up with no early years ed at all and children go to school in a worse place than with the current 15 hours.

I find these policies are putting me off all the big parties. None of them have a clue about how things work in the real world.

annefennell said it better than I could- exactly

If you get everyone back to work, the only people volunteering a lot of hours every week, will be well off SAHPs living in wealthy areas

Exactly. So that will available in only very localised areas.

I only know a couple of SAHMs now (now all children are at school) who have no intention of going back to work and they would have no desire to look after anyone else's children unpaid before and after school. I presume if they did, they would qualify as a childminder!

Those SAHM mums who have their own small children at home-will be at home with them from 7.30-9 and 3.30-6-having made that choice to sacrifice their own salary.

Thanks very much for all your thoughts - really interesting, and as ever we'll take it into account if we're asked to feed back on anything.

Re the childcare vs early education point: completely take your point - we were trying to use parties' own phrasing as far as possible in the OP to avoid wrongly interpreting anything, but (again) tis very interesting that so many of you feel so strongly about this aspect of it and we'll try to reflect that back.