Ending the childcare arms race

[InThePottingShed]

“Infants may not be a target audience for politicians but, if the voting age was reduced to zero, (maybe one day in Scotland), my bet is that babies would not vote to be taken from their mothers and put in the care of strangers for hours and hours every day.”

I think this is a thoughtful article. Whatever your political views, many parents would prefer to spend more time with their children when they are very young, yet all the political parties seem hellbent on us all being back in the workplace as quickly as possible.

Miriam Cates on ending the childcare arms race

Honestly, I think this article is unhinged. Absolutely noone is advocating forcing babies into childcare.

“But polling consistently shows that two thirds of women would choose to work less when their children are young if they could afford to. In fact, nearly four in ten mothers of under fours would prefer to give up work altogether to look after their children.”

Unhinged? In what way? Where does Miriam Cates say babies are being forced into childcare?
She simply points out that there is another perspective on this issue.
Are the women polled ‘unhinged’?

Really good article. Thanks for sharing OP.

What's unhinged? The polling? The points about long-term structural reform addressing the underlying problems?

Maybe this is unhinged?

"If politicians really want to improve family finances, then tax and housing reform are the only real solutions. But in the clear absence of any political appetite to address these two issues, taxpayer funded childcare seems to be the only option on the table. Sadly it’s an option that seems doomed to fail, given that in the current economic climate we have neither the money nor the workers required to deliver the number of childcare places that both political parties are promising"

This bit?

"for so many families in 2024, theoretical arguments about what babies or mothers might want will be irrelevant. Whatever families wish for in an ideal world, in the real world parents must feed, clothe, and provide for their children. And, over the last 30 years it has become increasingly difficult for families to make ends meet on one full-time income, driving an increase in the number of parents of small children in full-time work and consequently more demand for formal childcare."

Or this?

"The key drivers for this are taxation and housing costs. Following tax reforms in the 1990s, British families pay far more tax than their OECD counterpartss_, thanks to our system of individual — rather than household — taxation. This, combined with frozen tax thresholds, and the way that benefits are withdrawn as income increases means that many families are paying effective tax rates of 70 or 80 per cent on every additional pound they earn. In this context it is almost impossible for one partner to increase their net earnings enough so the other can take time off to look after small children."

Is this unhinged?

"over the last thirty years, the average house price has doubled from four times to eight times the median annual wagee_. If housing costs and taxation had remained static as a proportion of household income, British families would be better off by hundreds of pounds a month."

Of course I don’t think those women are unhinged. In fact, I was very much one of them - I massively reduced my working hours when my children were small. One the things that made that possible was AFFORDABLE CHILDCARE making it possible to take a lower paid job than I’d had previously.

Since then, the costs of childcare have sky rocketed and Sure Start - which was a wonderful thing, levelling the playing field for children & parents - has been decimated.

Its absolutely right that politicians are trying to find solutions that make childcare for very small children more consistent, higher quality & more affordable - that increases parents choices about how much & the kind of work they do.

I think the language of the article is extremely hyperbolic & misleading.

Lots of young children love nursery and studies show it's good for them. Definitely better to be in nursery full time than being forced to live in a household with domestic violence because that is the only way they can be fed. Grandparent care is less good for children and will be increasing unavailable as grandmothers have to work until their seventies.

“I think the language of the article is extremely hyperbolic & misleading”

Examples?

The Conservatives have been in power for a decade. In that time, if they’d wanted to financially incentivise SAHP, they could have:

• sorted out the marginal tax rate on child benefit, and tackled the issue of SAHP (usually mothers) losing eligibility because their partners earn over the threshold
• increased maternity allowance to the same rate as SMP
• increased the rate of SMP so that lower earning women could take a longer maternity leave
• investigated ways to use 15/30 hours for grandparent care
• Not cut benefits for third and subsequent children

They haven’t, because that might mean that lower income families would benefit. Ms Cates should understand that the party she represents has had the chance to address these issues, and it’s failed, because fundamentally it doesn’t want to reduce inequality.

Hyperbolic and misleading? A few examples -

“handed over to the State”

“taken from their mothers and put in the care of strangers for hours and hours every day.”

“For the State to actively encourage mothers back to the workplace as soon as possible is to completely devalue the irreplaceable role of mothering in the crucial first two years of a child’s life”

“Politicians should stop treating babies as a hindrance to economic growth and instead support the bearing and raising of children as the key to a strong, prosperous and productive nation”

I 100% agree that housing costs in our country are too high & that the burden of taxation falls too heavily on low income families under the current tax system but it’s a bit rich coming from a politician whose party has been in government for 13 years.

I don’t think anyone’s hellbent on us returning to work. It is not going to be compulsory or expected that babies under one must start formal childcare - she’s being a bit dramatic to suggest so. The gvmt can’t win - I think they have reacted quite quickly to the childcare crisis and many families will benefit hugely. Such overly emotive words used - my baby has been looked after by a ‘stranger’ since 10 months old, they have a wonderful relationship and have a lot of fun together. Her father and I were strangers to her once too 🙄

Maybe fewer women would return to work if they could afford to stay at home, but surely that needs to be considered individualistically by families when they are making their reproduction plans.

The article lists the benefits to babies when their mothers stay home, but fails to mention the benefits to children (and women) when mothers return to work. No mention of the benefits of present fathers, they can do as they please and get a pat on the back for it. There’s no perfect way to parent, every family is different, and the new free hours allow families greater freedom of choice.

I personally think that women do a lot of good for the wellbeing of society being out of the home - involved in the running of our country’s organisations. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a country run solely by men, there are a few of those in the world, and they’re not very nice places. No doubt, women also do a great deal of good inside the home. We need to find a way to achieve a balance - and some families do find this balance. Some take a few years out when the babies are little, some work part time, some choose careers which allow flexible working. I happen to be a teacher, so earn the average UK wage, but get the balance of 13 weeks off per year, and 3 hours a day at home with the little ones awake. Some nations are better at safeguarding family time than we are - I’d like to see this in the UK - for example, it should be illegal for employers to expect unpaid overtime, and no contact should be allowed outside of working hours, during holidays etc etc.

As for her solutions: less tax and housing reforms, she is rather vague about what exactly those solutions would entail.

I, for one, am glad to be returning to work after having a baby, but my god, do articles like this remind me (not my DH) that I should feel guilty about that.

Very strange article with lots of criticisms of current government policy (conveniently forgetting who she works for as an MP) and no actual solutions.

I always wonder who is looking after her children. There is a faint whiff of hypocrisy across the whole piece.

Great post 👏

A very lazy, poorly thought through article. Sorting out tax would be lovely but it won’t make enough difference to most two parent family incomes for one to suddenly stop working. Housing costs are too high, yes, and what does she actually propose to do about it? Nothing, because no one knows what to do about other than creating overpriced new builds to inflate the construction market.

If she’s so desperate for everyone to stay home with the kids, then you’ll need to make child benefit the equivalent of the median income of wherever the person lives. No? Didn’t think so.

Maybe fewer women would return to work if they could afford to stay at home, but surely that needs to be considered individualistically by families when they are making their reproduction plans.

This reminds me of a particularly smug middle class pregnancy book that advised ‘wearing one’s husbands clothes.’

I’m sorry, Skimm, that sounds utterly shit

Once upon a time single parents weren’t forced off of income support until their youngest was at secondary school, then it went to 7, then 5 and I believe now, 3? So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if 7 months is the next stage.

I think the message from government is that both parents should be working and putting their children in to childcare. I would welcome debate about that, it’s really difficult to discuss without people taking offence though. The research didn’t show nurseries were better for children who didn’t have adverse circumstances at home. There is huge benefit to children from being cared for by engaged and able parents and grandparents and that should be recognised too. I really think prior to school age we should be supporting choice, at least to work part time

I wanted to stay home with my children in the early years, this was helped by the government in my country because they pay a child home care benefit to families that keep their children under 3 years old home rather than put them in municipal childcare. This helps free up more spaces for the children that need childcare, and helps families afford to have a parent stay home for those first few years (its not a big amount though, it only helps, it certainly doesn't replace a salary but if a few hundred euros a month makes the difference between being able to afford to stay home or not then its a big help). It can also be used to pay grandparents to look after your child so you can work part time or whatever but not need to send your child to nursery.

That's a way the UK government could help parents (most likely mums) who want to stay home, stay home.

Clearly the million mothers who say they would like to work more hours but can't because of lack of access to childcare are irrelevant.

Bear in mind that enabling two-parent families with children to live on a single income so one parent can be a SAHP is all very well if they stay together but rapidly falls to pieces if the single income earner buggers off or becomes incapacitated. There's much more pressure to stay together if the SAHP hasn't worked at all for six years (assuming a 2 year gap between 2 children).

Arming the CSA would help of course, but I don't think that's part of Cates' plan, and it's no use if the earner is incapacitated.

When I had my first child it was 3 months paid and 3 months additional mat leave, I went back to work when he was 6 months
By the time I had my third that had gone up to a year. It was a lot more traumatic for both of us leaving him at 1 year because that is peak age for separation anxiety.
I think this preoccupation with children needing to be with their mothers intensively is quite a modern thing and quite middle class. Historically children would have been looked after by a range of people who weren't their mother. It's most important the child knows the caregiver, not that it's their mother.

Working class families shared childcare out, but families are no longer all located in the same village so we’re shit out of luck on that front nowadays.

Childcare is not always a bad thing. I've cared for children (from rich backgrounds too) who've arrived aged 2 not being able to stand, aged 3 not being able to talk (no SEN). Being at home is not always best. There can be a middle ground.

But I think we need an overhaul of everything - not just living costs, but people's expectations of life eg do you need a 4 bed with an acre land as your first house and two holidays abroad each year? Yes costs have increased, but so have expectations...

2/3 of women would choose to work fewer hours yet 4/10, so less than half, would want to give up work altogether. Therefore, 1/3 of women are working the right level for them but most women want to continue working after they’ve had a child. Therefore, childcare needs to be affordable, accessible and well funded to ensure stability for families and children using that setting.

The poll only asks mothers what they want, not fathers. So the obvious question is, these mothers who want to work work less or stop work altogether, is the burden of care equal in their homes? Or are they running themselves ragged trying to work and do most of the care for their children? If care was equal in their households, would these women still want to reduce their hours?

Women on lower incomes naturally leave the job market because the cost of childcare is more than their wage. As a society we look at it as the woman’s job to cover childcare expenses and if her wage doesn’t cover childcare, what’s the point in working. This article reinforces that it’s a woman’s job to stay home and look after the children, lest her working causes irreparable damage to their child but obviously the father working has no impact. The women polled are middle to high income earners, therefore their outgoings are naturally higher and would probably be excluded from other incentives for housing and tax.

It’s a flawed and simplistic view to just blame the Government. It’s much deeper than that. What is happening to encourage men to do more? Shared parental was brought in and that’s a great incentive but it ignores the fact that on average men significantly outward women and that most employers don’t do enhanced maternity leave, let alone enhanced paternity leave. What is being done to encourage employers to be more flexible for male and female employees (and open to everyone not just parents)? What can be done to help those working in sectors that don’t have flexibility such as healthcare, social work, education?

Misrepresenting a statistic to say most women would stay home with their children is lazy and damaging to those women who didn’t enjoy staying home with their children and were desperate to get back to work after maternity leave.

That said, I do think there's some interesting thinking in Cates' views. The UK's insistence on taxing people as individuals without allowing for their number of dependents is very unusual globally, and I think it's unfair.

And a lot of the social and financial problems we find ourself in are the result of an untrammelled free market in housing, which distorts the entire UK economy in so many ways, and has funnelled a lot of benefit and government money into the hands of private landlords. So her suggestion of a far more socialised housing system is onto something - I can't see the Tories going for it though, and the current Labour Party are unlikely to go for anything radical enough to make a difference.

There are a lot of good points in this article - the child benefit system where a family earning 45k loses child benefit but one earning 80k does not is clearly unfair. I do think it's worth having a discussion whether a system that forces a mother on benefits return to stacking shelves in a supermarket rather than staying home and looking after her child prior to school age (which would be her preference) is really the best one, and that's the current situation.

These conversations always end up discussing people who are well off and I think that's a real shame, but perhaps not surprising. Someone working in zero hours contracts with no pension doesn't really benefit from things like 'career progression' in the early years for their children, they also won't be using the best nurseries..

The biggest issue raised in this article is the quality and reality of childcare provision. In theory, yes, a good quality nursery with consistent caregivers may well be better for a family and a child than the mother staying at home but that's not the reality for a hell of a lot of the population.

When I was looking at nurseries for my child, only the more expensive ones had staff that had been there more than a year. The turnover was horrendous. There were a lot of people working there clearly 'travelling through'. Childcare staff do not earn sufficient money to guarantee a quality environment or to encourage consistent staff in many cases and as Cates points out it's all very well stating that there will be 'free' to parents places from 7 months but if it's not affordable for providers to do this, then those places just won't exist.