Government delays childcare help

How did we manage before? I never had any free childcare bit somehow managed. Is this what's referred to as the 'nanny state'.

Housing costs can need more than 1 salary nowadays.

They always did for us too. We most certainly did not have the easy time young people seem to think we did! I worked extra hours to earn time off in lieu that I needed for childcare. No holidays as I needed to keep the hours saved for children's illness . No parental leave either. Not moaning. We just got on with it.

Isn't it the new tax free childcare voucher scheme that's been delayed, rather than the 30 hours universal childcare?

All 3 yr olds are currently entitled to 30 hrs free childcare.

No it's 15 hours at the moment. The promise was it would be increased to 30.

I always thought that parents wanted better for their children than they had themselves, but obviously I am wrong.
I did not have help when my children were young, but I do not think my children or grandchildren shouldn't have it if necessary.
And these days it is necessary, as Gammon says.

I don't think state nurseries for babies upwards is the best for children!

They are not in state nurseries. Where do you think you are?
Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Israel?
They will be with childminders, etc., or nurseries as they get older.
Anyway, I said we wanted better for our children, not best.
Better does not mean just nursery education for all. It means for those who need to go out to work - unfortunately too many - they will be helped to have jobs and childcare to suit.

Anyway, the fact is that the government promised this last year and has now broken its promise. Nothing new there, then.

Yes, nandalot of course it is.
Sorry

Toys back in the pram dj. I meant state funded nurseries as I suspect you well knew. Leaving babies all day in the care of others is not better or even best practice. Flexible work practice, fathers taking responsibility etc would be more impressive than expecting the state to prop up families.

I help out with one of grandchildren, BUT my daughters and daughter in law would stay at home if they could afford (not necessarily monitary)'to. My daughters work part-time, one to keep her seniority, the other one as she worked very hard to get her PHD in science. She enjoys and wishes to continue her career.

My daughter in law and son live in London, need I say anymore re buying a house there.

One consideration some people forget is that in the future without a private/work pension women will be disadvantaged on retirement. Whilst men in some pension schemes have seen their contributions rise and qualifying years go up. As the state pension, (to which all workers have contributed) reduces a company pension scheme for both men and women will be an essential part of retirement income.

My mothers generation gave up work on marriage, when I started work that was still common, or else women left when they got pregnant. Are some people still believing we should go back to that?

I didn't need to work as to buy our house as we only needed one income, but when my children were all at secondary school I chose to build a career.

I want my girls (and my granddaughters), to have a choice, not dictated by a husbands/partners income, on whether they stay into higher education as a career choice and then to work or not when needing childcare. Not an easy choice - or lifestyle from my observations.

Finally 'education' is not paid for at school, many mothers then go out to work, and a furore ensues if teachers strike- as they have to take a days unpaid leave or use holidays. Education/Childcare costs come from our taxes, without well educated workers who will be paying the next generations pensions?

You need to say what you mean, then, Jane.

lyndyn I never said mothers shouldn't work. I had to work full time myself. If you see my previous posting about it you'll see how I managed. It was hard. But the person who suffered most was me! We did OK. No foreign hols, fancy tvs or tech stuff. We had a pretty scruffy house but ok. I also did a PhD on the side. All this against the background of poor DH being made redundant several times (Thatchers years). I suppose that's why I don't have much time for whingeing young mums today!

I don't know any whinging young mums - do I live in a different world? Some parents have always whinged and some parents always will whinge. Same with judgemental attitudes towards working/stay at home mums. I'd hoped that by the time my children reached their 30's attitudes about working/not working and child care provision would have improved. Sadly it seems that isn't the case.

I'm against polarisation. Its not a matter of working vs not working. My concern is relying on state funding or the expectation of it then blaming the govt for their not being able to work. My comment re whingeing was regarding the OP and others who blame the govt for everything!

I would imagine lots of people voted the government in for the reason that they supported childcare, among others. I would imagine that swayed quite a few swing voters.
The OP is about the government changing its stance, in less than 100 days in government. I do not see that as whingeing.
And, as I said earlier, and Iam says, we expect things to have got better for our children, normally.

Well I feel there should be no government help for families! There is no excuse two children are enough! They all want bigger houses, more than one fancy car, the most up to date gadgets, all the latest fashion, the latest furniture etc to keep up with the neighbours and not forgetting the foreign holidays! So two parents have to work to keep up with all this! So where are the young children, being cared for by people other than their parents!

When we were growing up it was frowned upon if a Mother went out to work. She stayed at home to look after the children and the house, make nutritious meals, no unhealthy ready meals then! The meal was always on the table when Father returned from work. There was certainly no hand outs from the government.

We never went on foreign holidays, never had a car and we never kept up with the neighbours. We were a happy healthy family and had to make do and mend.

Still Dizee Rascal?

Wow - no judgements there then rascal?

Just my opinion.

Maybe it shouldnt be state funding - perhaps employers - who need parents to work - should make more of a financial or practical contribution. I toofeel that long hours in not always verygood nurseries is not necessarily the best thing for very young children but many families canhardly get by on two full time salaries, and cutting hours is not doable. It is not always easy for parents, especially men, to negotiate flexible or reduced hours.

I didnt get any help with childcare either but I wouldnt wish that on my own children. Would we think it acceptable for someone who lived during pre-NHS times to say "I didnt have state health care so why should my children or anyone else"? I'm still of the opinion that in the 60s and 70s the essentials of life were more affordable - food, housing, energy, travel, etc. My husband was a student nurse when we had our first child and I didnt work for several months afterwars and even then only intermittently with agencies for a while. But we never went without food or heating even on a very low income. I dont think that would be possible these days.

Another election promise bites the dust then; again something in the manifesto that almost persuaded me to vote for them. Shameful imo .