Report advises end to universal 15 hours free childcare

Jean I don`t think policy should be determined on whether or not it is political suicide . Surely you are saying the May should not implement this in case causes less people to vote for her . What about whether or not it is the right thing to do for the country.

I think free child care should be means tested also bus passes . winter fuel allowance and DLA (PIP) which all are not at present . David Cameron applied for (and got) DLA for Ivan which is a disgrace which ever way you look at it .

In our area not everyone will get the additional 15 hours anyway because it will be based on postcodes. I assume this means the more deprived postcodes have been identified as needing it more??

There are also implications for the provider who currently makes more money by charging a higher rate for any additional hours of childcare. They are not going to be very happy.

Mair Youre using a fallacious argument of insignificant cause regarding the number of wealthy people Sorry, could you explain this sentence? I have no idea what you mean.
I think your accusations of hypocrisy, whoever they are levelled at, are quite uncalled for.

Here's the thing however: it's not compulsory!

I don't agree with taking away bus passes, but I do agree that people should think twice before applying for /using benefits just because they can

We didn't use all of our free hours with one of our kids, I know lots of people who don't use their free hours at all!
I know even more people who wish they didn't have to use it and could afford to go part time for more of their children's early years…

if there was more flexibility with regards to working (or not) and parenting, the uptake in free hours might drop anyway?

hitching it on doesn't allow for any step down as you move from qualified to not qualified. Also if there's a muck-up with one then you lose both!

Benefit admin can be so inefficient, hitching them together could leave people entitled and needing them with nothing at all for weeks on end while "blips" get sorted out

The issue of targeting benefits has been a minefield from the start of the welfare state. It inevitably involves some sort of means-testing and this is very controversial, especially when the cost of this outweighs the cost of the benefits.

I guess the only way to target it would be to hitch it to some other benefit as a qualifying condition.

Anyone else remember that in the 70s, free universal childcare was one of the demands of the the women's liberation movement?
Ah - here was the list:

Equal pay for equal work
Equal education and job oportunities
Free contraception
Free 24-hour community-controlled childcare
Legal and financial independence for women
An end to discrimination against lesbians
Freedom for all women from intimidation by the threat or use of male violence.
An end to the laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and men's agression towards women

no they went very out of fashion

and yes part of that was that they were poor quality

Sadly there may be a correlation between everyone (and not just the needy families) getting them, and calls to improve quality actually being listened to for a change?

There may have been an element of "beggers can't be chosers" and we shouldn't complain because it's a hand-out/freebee that deminished when it became a standard school service for everyone so people demanded more quality?

well, not so much that the lunch boxes themselves became a status symbol, but there was a stigma attached to school dinners for a while there

Were there no children paying for school dinners then/

If not perhaps the stigma was more due to the low quality of the dinners than the fact that those eating them got them free.

Not sure about the free school dinners notanan. For a brief period my DD was entitled to them, which I was very glad to claim as a single parent working full time. But Ana, you might be nice! and just be glad that your child was being fed, there WERE others who were very "no son or daughter of mine needs school dinners" and their pride mattered more than the child getting well fed!

There are harrowing stories of lunchboxes from school staff from before universal school dinners for KS1. There was a really really shocking thread about it posted by school staff on MN, even if you think you can imagine how bad it was for some kids.. it was worse!

Oh yes, 'taking a lunch box' did become a sort of fashion, but nothing to do with pride, the kids just didn't like the school dinners!

well, not so much that the lunch boxes themselves became a status symbol, but there was a stigma attached to school dinners for a while there.

There isn't any more. Everyone except the very fussy or very allergic tend to have them now, which means that within that, kids who wouldn't otherwise are getting at least one proper meal a day.

Not sure about the free school dinners notanan. For a brief period my DD was entitled to them, which I was very glad to claim as a single parent working full time.

She was never stigmatised in any way, none of her fellow-pupils knew. If you're really on a cripplingly tight budget, you don't turn down 'free' anything.

But that DID happen with school meals. The lunch box became a status symbol, and there were kids being sent in with lunchboxes to save their parents pride, but when they got there there would be barely anything edible inside!

The other benefit of having a universal benefit, is that poor people who feel shame about "hand outs" are more likely to uptake the benefit if it's not "for poor people"

It doesnt have to be universal to avoid a stigma, just have a cut off point high enough that the majority will still benefit from it.

I dont think the suggestion is that families on average incomes should lose it.

The other benefit of having a universal benefit, is that poor people who feel shame about "hand outs" are more likely to uptake the benefit if it's not "for poor people"

Case in point: hot school dinners: poor families didn't want their kids singled out: they were not uptaking the offer of free school dinners. Then they made school dinners free for all Key stage 1 kids and hey presto: many of the families they were previously trying to target, began taking up the free meals again (since everyone was having them and it wasn't singling out their family)

I agree notanan I suspect that trying to means test it would be far more expensive than it sounds and a beaurocratic nightmare. People would certainly slip through the gaps. DS is having an awful time trying to sort out benefits, the last thing he would need would be having to fight for free childcare as well.

if you overlay it on top of the child benefit test then you doubly shaft the people on the borderline.

It can cost a lot but doesnt have to if its a simple measure of earnings like the new child benefit test.

administering means testing can cost more than it saves, so adding in a threshold doesn't mean there'll be more in the pot for anyone in need, it usually means the opposite: the poor get no more at all (except now they have to fight for what they're entitled to and prove they can get it and deal with "blips" like it being stopped inaccurately), the struggling fall through the gaps and don't qualify, and the admin costs shoot up - making the whole scheme too expensive and "unsustainable"…..

Its amusing to see leftist posters who one would EXPECT to favor redistributive use of money spent on childcare in favour of the poorest, not only hypocritically demanding it be spent on the better off, but also losing their tempers and making catty remarks.

This wouldn't be anything to do with the fact that their own grandkids are benefiting from the free 15hrs even though the parents can afford to pay, or would it?

but the fact remains that a child's first seven years are when their natural curiosity and thirst for learning are at their greatest and what happens to them during this time can have lifelong effects in terms of their future

Yoour second point is true but the first simply opinion.

Youre using a fallacious argument of insignificant cause regarding the number of wealthy people. Even if the proportion spent on the children of the wealthy is relatively small this does NOT counter the point that it is wasteful use of tax payers money and should b spent elsewhere.

To be fair, a lot of high earning parents do send their offspring to nurseries attached to prep schools, and yes, they do receive the same funding as others which they have to top up to cover the fees. From then on, for the next 13 or so years, these same parents are paying (after tax deductions) for their children's education thus saving the government £65k for educating each child. Times that by half a million or more children in private education! State schools would be in a terrible situation if they had to find places for all these children, and of course this would eat heavily into the education budget.

So, Mair, I'm sure no one will begrudge the wealthier parents a few terms of receiving the Nursery Education Grant like any other parents.

I wonder why the powers-that-be decided that they'd only offer the 15 or 30 hours per week during school term times?

Seems a bit daft as nurseries are open all year round. And before anyone says that school nurseries take children at 3, some do but certainly not at 2.