Conservaties to double free childcare to 30 hours a week

Marisco

Spendless wrote: »

It would have been useful to me, but only when the 2nd child was eligible and the eldest in school, because the childcare bill was equivalent to my then wages for one child. It's irrelevant to me, mine will both be in their teens by then, the eldest in sixth form/college/training.

I am suspicious though, if the 30 hours are for (both) working parents, what about households where one doesn't, will they still get the 15 hours or not??? This non-means tested funding is for nursery education not for childcare as such, though many people including me used it for that purpose, so unfair to take it completely away from the child due to their parent/s employment status. It's why it is only funded for so many weeks per year and you only get it with a childminder if they are accredited (or at least that used to be the case, maybe it's changed). Perhaps I am just being very cynical :cool: and this has been addressed??

Why would a household where one is a SAHP, need childcare at all?

Amara

Marisco wrote: »

Why would a household where one is a SAHP, need childcare at all?

Friend of mine is SAHM , gets free childcare for her 2years old (low income additional funding) and she uses it. I don't blame her, but it is annoying , that someone, who doesn't need it , gets it, while I need it, as I work, and I have to pay for it.

onlyroz

Marisco wrote: »

Why would a household where one is a SAHP, need childcare at all?

There is an argument that 3-year-olds should be allowed to attend a pre-school for its socialisation benefits, regardless of whether their parents work or not. I think that the original free 15 hours should be sufficient for this and would not like to see the entitlement of 30 hours to be extended to non-working parents.

rpc

Marisco wrote: »

Why would a household where one is a SAHP, need childcare at all?

Because early intervention with managed learning is one of the best ways towards social mobility and breaking the cycle of joblessness that some families slip in to.

For the middle classes, it's a giveaway vote buying tactic.

For those in more deprived groups, it helps teach the child things that their parents can't/won't.

wiltsguy_2

i dont have kids at that age so doesn't affect me, but if this is the major selling point of a Tory goverment...well i shall not be voting for them!

Marisco

wiltsguy wrote: »

i dont have kids at that age so doesn't affect me, but if this is the major selling point of a Tory goverment...well i shall not be voting for them!

I'd be more inclined to vote for them if they said they were going to limit child related benefits to 2 children only. You (general) want any more? Then pay for them yourselves.

BJV

Marisco wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to vote for them if they said they were going to limit child related benefits to 2 children only. You (general) want any more? Then pay for them yourselves.

Completely agree. My children are both at school and child care used to cost nearly all of my wage.


Would I of liked more children ? yes in an ideal world I would of loved more children but we did not because we could not afford them. It really does pee me off when I see the mums at the park with three or four children and then they go back to the beautiful house paid for by social housing.


Hey not for one minute saying that this is always the case far from it their are a lot of genuine people caught in the child care trap. Limiting benefits would be a good option.

Marisco

BJV wrote: »

Completely agree. My children are both at school and child care used to cost nearly all of my wage.


Would I of liked more children ? yes in an ideal world I would of loved more children but we did not because we could not afford them. It really does pee me off when I see the mums at the park with three or four children and then they go back to the beautiful house paid for by social housing.


Hey not for one minute saying that this is always the case far from it their are a lot of genuine people caught in the child care trap. Limiting benefits would be a good option.

Well it would certainly make a lot of them think on before having kid after kid they can't afford without a lot of state help.

onlyroz

wiltsguy wrote: »

i dont have kids at that age so doesn't affect me, but if this is the major selling point of a Tory goverment...well i shall not be voting for them!

Looking at this from purely an economic perspective, encouraging more parents (mums in particular) back to work is a good thing. The cost to the government in subsidising childcare is largely paid back via the taxes that the working parents pay. Also, a woman who is able to continue her career with shorter breaks for childcare will be able to progress further and therefore pay even more taxes.

There are also benefits to the children - a 3-year-old will be following the Early Years curriculum and so will be getting a head-start, both educationally and socially, over those children who first experience an education environment when they start primary school.

kafkathecat

Marisco wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to vote for them if they said they were going to limit child related benefits to 2 children only. You (general) want any more? Then pay for them yourselves.

But that is punishing the child for the 'sins' of the parent. It isn't as if we have a high birth rate in this country and without an ever increasing population our economic system doesn't work...