It seems New Labour hasn't lost its appetite for outsourcing parenting. Ed Balls announced today a policy (yes, a policy) of 25 hours free childcare for 3-4 year olds where 'all' parents are working. This extends the free nursery care introduced by the last Labour government.
Last week the Libdems offered to let the state cook the main meal of the day for all infant school children. This week Labour are offering to relieve us of the burden of being with our own children so that we can get out to work.
Hello? Parenting is the most significant work that anyone with children will ever do. Yet again politicians send the message that earning money matters more than raising your children. But not to worry, the Big Friendly Government will do it for you. Politicians go on and on about making work pay, how about making parenting pay? Shouldn't it be more rewarding, in every sense, for parents to invest in their children rather than being bribed back into the workplace? Home is a workplace too.
If Labour really do want to put £800m into family support, then how about something really useful: parenting skills courses for first-time parents, with regular refreshers/peer support as children grow older, to equip parents with the skills they need to raise children well. Then there wouldn't be so much need for the state to step in at a later stage to provide the hot meals and safe/supportive environment that some children never experience at home. It also empowers people to do a better job themselves, rather than extending the client base of the state at the expense of family life.
Unfortunately parenting classes don't pay the mortgage.
ReplyDeleteRichard's managed to say in one sentence something that would have taken me two paragraphs. I don't know how you can possibly say that it's bad for working parents to get some little help towards their childcare costs. Is your middle-class cocoon so comfy that you've never had to meet working class families where both parents have to work to keep a roof over their children's head?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's bad, I'm asking for a level playing field. There are plenty of middle class parents where both have to work too, but this isn't about class. How about supporting people who actually want to bring their children up rather than outsourcing it to the state?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat does "supporting people who actually want to bring their children up" actually mean? Paying one parent decent money to stay at home? Paying one parent enough money that the other can afford to stay at home? State handouts or decent wages? Affordable housing? All those things the state doesn't want to provide because the rich don't like paying taxes?
ReplyDeleteAll of the above, especially affordable housing (rented and owned), plus affordable childcare. Germany has a monthly cap on what you have to pay for nursery fees, and other European countries have some good models. Sweden has a combination of free nursery care, a child-raising allowance for parents of 1-3 year olds, and a national parenting support strategy.
ReplyDeleteThe nearest thing we have to a national support network is SureStart: I'm not sure how effective it is, but it's horrendous that our County council is proposing to close 2/3 of the centres in the county.
No, parenting classes don't pay the mortgage, though I've probably saved a few quid by learning - from parenting classes - how to set consistent boundaries, rather than bribing my kids into good behaviour with sweets and gadgets.
so it seems that not only do you support the policies that you appeared to be railing against, but you'd like the "big friendly government" to go even further. fair enough. I just wonder why you sounded so critical of policies you appear to support...
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I support a level playing field. In their rhetoric, all the main political parties only support what parents are doing when they get back to work, there's never the message that giving yourself to full-time parenting is as valid a choice as going back to work. If Ed Balls had said to parents: "whatever choice you make, whether to go back to work or to raise your children, we'll do our best to make it financially viable" then I'd be clapping.
ReplyDeleteFrom Ed Balls' speech: "But for many families high child care costs are a real problem and can mean that it doesn’t even add up to go to work. Childcare is a vital part of our economic infrastructure that, alongside family support and flexible working, should give parents the choice to stay at home with their children when they are very small and to balance work and family as they grow older."
ReplyDeleteWhen do we hear you clapping?
one of my Twitter correspondents: "some people don't have a choice, they have to go to work or they would be homeless or not afford to pay bills...something needs to happen to change that. I have experienced single parenthood and no choice in the matter." From what Ed Balls is saying, from age 3 the government will make it more financially rewarding to go out to work (good) but without any complimentary support for parents of pre-school children who consider parenting to be their full time job.
ReplyDeleteAnd I worry when I hear politicians talk about childcare as part of 'economic infrastructure'. As Childrens Secretary Ed Balls did a lot for the wellbeing of children, arrangements for their care and nurture are far more than 'economic infrastructure'. Ed Miliband made some encouraging comments about the value of parents spending time with their children, but then spoke of every school having 'the breakfast clubs and after-school care that parents need'. The primary purpose of a school is education for children, not to provide childcare for parents. (And if flexible working is working, then there shouldn't be such a need for wraparound childcare.) I worry that these policies are being driven more by economics than by what's in the best interests of children and parents.
We aren't human beings any more, we're "economic units".
ReplyDelete