new proposals for helping parents - what do you think ?

[throckenholt]

I haven't noticed a thread about this.

In the news today there is talk of conservative and labour plans for parents. Seems to me all these pre-school and after-school clubs, and "free" nursery places do nothing to help family life. I think it would be much better if it was easier if parents of young children (including schoolage ones) could earn a decent living working in school hours and term time only, and working form home more. They seem to want to enable people to work longer hours by paying someone else to look after their kids - so presumably they hardly ever see them ?

What do you think.

I'm with you throckenbolt and am very lucky to be able to work from home. It means that atm it's a bloody nightmare as I am a full-time SAHM looking after the kids all day and I fit my work into evenings and weekends. I'm knackered but it works for now and when the kids are at school it will be ideal - I can work while they are at school and be there to take them, pick them up, do homework, have friends round for tea etc (everything I had when I was growing up).

I agree that there seems so much emphasis on helping people work full-time, rather than focusing on opportunities for more flexible working.

If people want to work full-time of course, that is fine and it's their choice, but I know loads of friends who are dreading the school years as they really don't want to have to rely on after school clubs - they want to be the ones to collect their own children.

My plan is to marry someone who has the same job as me and both work flexitime so that one of us drops the kids off at school and one picks them up. It doesn't matter who the guy is, i'll never see him anyway.

Completely agree throckenholt - if only it was easier to work from home - many parents would be happy to be extra effort in - eg having to juggle kids being around and working etc in return for no wasted time commuting, a flexible day run by themselves etc etc. Would probably end up saving the government money too.

we have been lucky so far - both have gone part-time and share most of the childcare between us - but it hasn't been easy, and looks like it will be almost impossible to keep that flexibilty longterm. It looks like it gets harder when the kids are school age. All the agreements for flexible working only seem to extend to kids under 5 - why ???

BTW Throckenbolt - I think this thread has huge potential to get controversial!

What I'll say now is, plans to provide/improve pre- and after-school care for those wanting to work full-time is a good idea. BUT, I would also like to see a much bigger swing towards flexible working.

We already work far too many hours in this country, kids or not. The EU directive for working hours has done absolutely Jack in my experience to redress the work-life balance.

Despite the fact that dh is the 3rd highest biller in his co. (recruitment) and is a very successful account manager - all his regional manager focuses on is the fact that he leaves the office on time in the evening (or does half an hour extra but that's not good enough is it?). DH refuses to get home after the kids are in bed unless he really has to and I for one am glad my kids get bathed and put to bed by Daddy.

Don't know throckenbolt - it's back to front imo - it's when they go to school that they need your time the most isn't it? Personally I would hate not to be the one to pick my child up at the school gates - I guess because it's what I had and I want it for my kids.

I think that is just it - if we look after our own kids we are not paying anyone else to do it - so it doesn't show up in the economy. If we work and pay someone else then that is two paid people which "grows" the economy - does nothing for family life though. Wonder how many kids grow up only seeing their parents at weekends ?

I'd love it if i had some more flexibility WRT working from home and time off in the hols.

Leaving DD in earlycare isn't a big deal for either of us as mornings are just waiting for the rest of the day to start IYSWIM. But I HATE that i can't pick her up at 3.15 even once a week and that if she wants to have a friend round i have to blag it or use holiday.

I didn't intend for it to get controversial - but I can see that might happen .

I am not saying people shouldn't work, - but just commenting that for the good of family life (and well adjusted children maybe) we shouldn't, as a society, make it the norm for parents to work long hours and pay other people to look after the kids.

As you say as a country we already work long hours and the culture seems to be to expect everyone to work more and more which has dire consequences on family life .

I thought exactly this when watching the news this morning. I don't want to have after-school provision, I want a job that lets me pick my kids up myself.
Adn I want that job to stil be challenging and well paid - not just haev to settle for drudge work as so many women have to as that is the only thing that is flexible enough. When are government and employers going to realise that a happy workforce, with real work/life blanace, rather than just platitudes towards it, will actually be a much more efficient one.

The CM we use in the hols looks after another little girl who goes to wraparound care at school but is picked up by their live-in housekeeper. She goes to CM to give housekeeper a break as the housekeeper also has to look after her at w/e. The girl regularly goes for up to 8 weeks without seeing either parent, she's 5 years old.

It's like me now, I'm a SAHM but I could fit in about 4 hours work a day - 7 days a week, easily equal to a part time job, without needing any childcare but only if I could decide my own hours - say 10-11, then 2-3, then 9-11 say. but obviously that's currently impossible to find a job that lets you do that. But if it was made easier to do that sort of things, loads of people could 'work' without missing out on much time with their children and without spending extra money on childcare - it's mad that we can't!!!

The governmant have got it all wrong for many of the reasons already mentioned. Unfortunately this will put many parent under pressure to work longer hours as they will not be able to argue that they only want to work school hours as other childcare will be provided. The children will suffer and so will many parents who will not want to work these hours but may feel they have no choice. I think it is really sad when a government cannot see that children don't need more childcare they need parental care and input, what will happen when all these children grow up? What impact will all this shared care have on them? xxxxxx

Exactly WK - that's why working from home is 'ideal' if you can do it. Then you can fit it into those 2 hours here and there, that's what I do.

It's hard now because none of my kids are at school yet so I have no time during the day, just at night and w/e but come the school years I'm hoping it will work out to be ideal (for me).

Agree totally Mykidsmum.

that should be what governments are for - seeing the bigger picture longer term - but somehow they seem to be governed by the business lobby that say we all need to work work work. Even if it means our kids our out of control and we are all having mental breakdowns - I guess at least that way we are likely to die early and not need the pensions that we can't afford to save for ! Rant over

when I said our kids - I didn't mean yours (or mine!) I meant generally .

I think the government's suggestion is great. I want to work an 8-hour day and I need breakfast clubs and after-school clubs. I am so tired of people arguing that I don't look after my kids or never see them. My kids are not in care all day, but I much rather they stay an extra couple of hours at school than being picked up by a childminder and taking to another house before being moved again to go home. Much more disruptive and very difficult to find good childminders IMO.
We need flexi-hours and shorter days too (we all do, parents or not), but this is such an utopia in this country. It's much easier for the government to implement after-school care than changing working-culture and the way businesses think. It would also be a danger that women would find it harder to find work because an employer would just assume that you'd want to work from home or 4 hours a day. I don't think children are seen as a public good nor are working mothers seen as important tax payers in this country. I think a lot of people just want to put us in a corner and tell us to mind our own business(children).

When my twin DSs attend school in 4.5 years time, if I'm currently with the same employer, I'm hoping that I will be able to work 6 hours a day for 4 days a week, preferably from 0900 hours to 1500 hours. Consequently, breakfast and after-school clubs would be ideal for me. These are much better options in that they will be at school the whole time and you do not have worry about ensuring that someone else picks them up on time.

The whole point of these proposals is that the government at least recognises that the reality of today's society is that people work, whether they want to or not. People want safe and affordable childcare and this is one way of meeting those needs. Considering the amount of tax my DH and I pay, I welcome some form of it back in terms of affordable childcare because the only thing we are entitled to at the moment is child benefit.

Instinctively I don't like the idea of leaving dd in wrap-around care when she's at school, but the reality is that I might need it for at least part of the day if our CM is not able to do it (she's only 20 months at the moment though!). If there's one good thing about this government, it's the maternity/childcare policies (up to 1 year's maternity leave, paternity leave - which they're planning to extend, right to request flexible working, tax and NI back on childcare vouchers from next year, all the SureStart programmes including new playgrounds, £400 per term grant for 3 & 4 year olds in pre-school sessions, etc.). You may want them to do more, and it is right to keep focused on the benefits for children rather than just for working parents, but they have done a lot more than the previous government. The Tories have an appalling record on this - where I live they tried to close down the one free state nursery school in the 1980s. Their announcements about retraining grandparents as childminders, and increasing maternity pay ... but possibly reducing the amount of maternity leave ... is just political opportunism. But it is very interesting that the politicians think our vote is so important. Maybe they also look at mumsnet.

To be frank, I think their proposals to train grandmothers as childminders are bloody insulting. My Mum's perfectly capable of looking after my children without a piece of paper that says she can. She brought up me and my siblings without a certificate, and we seem to all be toilet trained and socialised (just!). That proposal is about controlling women, not liberating us.

I agree with Muminlondon, the Tories did bugger all about this for years. They now realise that there is no way they can get rid of the improvements Labour have made, so they're trying to come up with proposals to outflank them.

About time too. I still want childrearing to be recognised as socially and economically useful, whether it's done for love or money.

Apparantly Labour and Tory are producing these plans specifically to woo women of 25-45 - who are moving to the LibDems. I do find it depressing that childcare is such a 'women's issue' and our responsibility.

I think Labour's plans are great. With a 4 year old just started in reception I have found it a nightmare to organise care for the two days when neither or nor dp can pick him up and drop him off. Our solution is a childminder to drop off and then he goes to an afterschool club but I don't think it's ideal to have three different settings in one day (although am very very happy with them individually). The reality is that parents who both work need these services - and it's probably the minority of parents who will use them 8-6 every day. I don't think we're rearing a generation of children who will hardly see their parents.

As far as the tories go - they are obsessed with tax credits and giving people supposed choice of childcare services but not addressing the fact the services are not there to start with. And maybe the issue with tax and nannies does need to be addressed but only about 2% of the population use nannies. I think Labour are quite visionary in the way they have linked children's services with education rather than looking at things in little boxes - and I like the idea of schools as real centres for the community - labour's plans include schools offering far more to the community than 'just' childcare.

Personally, I appreciate that this is at least a campaign issue. But, 8 to 6 care at the local school isn't especially helpful to me. If I waited until 8:00 to drop off DD and then headed off to work, I would get there at about 9:30. Then, if I had to be back to pick her up before 6:00, I would have to leave work by 5:00. That means I could put in my full time work schedule (barely!) only if I never took a single minute for lunch. My husband works away all week (and believes it his his civil right to follow his job wherever he so desires). So, our solution is to have a live in nanny. That way I can leave at 7:30 and get to work around 8:15. Where I work, 8:15 is not particularly early, but it's acceptable. 9:30 is not.

Nannies are no longer a priviledge of the wealthy. If both parents work full time and have more than one child, they are in fact the most economical child care (depending on how much you pay then, I guess).

Agree that grandma applying for qualification is insulting... and rediculous. I think we should get financial support for whatever shildcare we so chose. With or without licensing.

Also, more people would choose au-pairs and nannies if they were subsidised. I've just discovered that if I get rid of my au-pair and put my dd into institutional, OFSTED inspected care, (which just wasn't suitable for her a year ago, but is now,) I'll get 70% of my childcare paid.

Which will cost the taxpayer an awful lot more money than if 100% of my au-pair's wages were subsidised! But hey-ho, the government knows best, I suppose.

Caligula is the subsidy the vouchers for early years ed which children get from 3? If so it's not to do with subsidising childcare it's to do with providing pre-school education to all three year olds.