People moaning about childcare.

[kettering_baggie]

First of all, for many voting for Brexit the issue wasn’t so much about cutting ourselves off from the EU as about immigration, which I believe to be a much more serious issue than many realise. As for voting Tory in the last election, could it be that it wasn’t so much about voting for the Tories as much as not wanting Corbyn and his cronies to get in? I voted for neither, by the way. I have spoken to people that dislike the Tories but dread what Labour would do to the country. If Sunak manages to convince enough of the electorate that he has cracked the immigration problem, then the Tories may well hang on at the next election.

Whatever your views are on immigration, continued levels cannot be sustained for very much longer. We already have a looming water supply issue; power generation, especially by green means, will become a problem and we are currently building thousands of houses and warehouses on good farmland. There is a limit beyond which we would all have to accept a significant alteration to our lifestyles, people won’t vote for that. So, what is to be done? We criticise our politicians but they do have some very, very difficult problems to deal with.

[mickd1961]

But that's my point Mick, your family were able to make ends meet with one modest earner, which isn't possible today. Your mortgage might have been at 15% but the house price to income rate was miles lower in the 80s. Imagine 15% interest rates on a £200k house today! The price to income rate is also driving away young house owners and people are having to have kids later to live a decent lifestyle.

It's well known that one of societies biggest problems is low population growth because of how expensive having children is. There will be no one to fund that ageing population and state pension at this rate. There's a very strong case for further subsidies on childcare as it can give the economy a good kick.

I do agree with your latter points Matt in that we need a workforce for the future to support the pensions for the elderly but in reality, I believe that successive governments will endeavour to make private pension provision compulsory with absolutely no opts outs allowed.

I have a a niece who’s a prime example of what’s wrong with the benefits system though.

She’s 30-31 and has 7 kids and has never done a days work in her life.

She’s constantly moaning to the council about her housing situation and had the seventh kid to virtually force the council into getting her a five bedroom house.

On your first paragraph.

I think you underestimate how wage to house ratios looked for many of us in the late 80’s.

My first house was a three bed mid terrace house that cost me £34,500 and at the time I was earning around £6000 to £7000 a year depending on commission.

In 1992 my next home cost me £96,500 and I was earning £12,000 per year.

I think one of the differences between then and now was the determination to save, both my wife and myself had saved significantly before we met and after we did meet we both stayed living with our parents ( and paying board and lodgings ) until we got married, we didn’t waste money on renting a house.

One of my big criticisms of all governments is the lack of making sure that kids are taught at school about saving and planning for life financial matters.

I was lucky, my dad was a rep for a finance company and a stickler for financial prudence.

My wife’s parents were the same, they owned three houses during their lifetime as well as a holiday home in Wales and they never had a mortgage in their lives.

They stayed with parents in the 50’s until they had saved for the first house and then always moved after saving up enough.

I know I’m old fashioned but I just hate seeing babies and toddlers being shoved into day care whilst mum’s work, those first 5-6 years are so important and you can never get them back.

[Omegstrat6]

For my own part, I have conflicting views on this.

To begin with, I think there are issues with the whole concept of farming kids out into "childcare". I know some, quite young children, who have to get up early to go to breakfast club, then school, then after school club, then childminder, then home. Attending all these different settings and not being able to spend more time in a home environment surely cannot be a good thing for either children or family. In the "old days" the single wage of the dad was generally sufficient to allow mum to stay at home-at least whilst the children were young-and look after both the children and home (in the days of no washing machine/drier/blankets instead of duvets housework was a lot harder and took up far more time). Sounds very ***ist-and it was-but the concept of children spending time with a parent (either mum or dad) rather than being farmed out so much is surely a good idea? These days things are different and many couples find that they both have to work in order to be able to financially afford to live and raise a family. With few now not having grandparents living close enough to help out they then have to rely on childcare providers. Its true that many of us have experienced high interest rates on our mortgages before in the past, but I would argue that couples today still have to spend a much higher percentage of their income on rent/mortgages than people did previously and that this is the key driver in many peoples financial issues alongside the hike in energy bills.

On the other hand, there are also still those who seemingly want to take advantage of chidcare placements to abdicate their parenting responsibilities. My wife-whose qualifications are in Early Years child development-used to work for Sure Start when these were still around. Designed by the government of the day to both help support young parents and encourage them back into work, it was also abused by some who did not work in order to allow them some "me" time to get their nails done or meet up with mates for a coffee. How our own mothers or grandmothers would have scoffed at that eh?

I'm sure that certain childcare settings can be very useful in both supporting the parents and in helping with child development but the sector is poorly paid and so doesn't attract the best -or qualified and there are many poor child-minders. Strange that couples work hard to afford better houses/cars/holidays but still scrimp on and entrust their most precious things-their children-to often poor childcare settings? Surely such an important sector should be better qualified and paid?

As for the "don't have kids unless you can afford them" argument, I certainly have no truck with those who bang out several kids with the expectation that the state will home, feed and clothe them and similarly have no time for those who moan that they cant afford to feed their kids but still expect to have the latest smart phone/SKY package/smoke/drink etc. Raising a family is never easy as it is and it does come with a financial cost so parents should be prepared to sacrifice other things and "do without" for a period of time. This should be accepted-but it is surely wrong if a working couple in the country today cannot genuinely afford to raise a family of say one or two children.

[Dubbag]

Everybody wants everything except responsibility.
We live in a sick generation that has no narrative save the "I want" narrative.
Nothing to do with old or young. Everything to do with responsibility..

[baggieal]

Those on benefits should be made to work or they lose their entitlement. Likewise any immigrants that enter should be set to work
Immediately and even if it’s community work ie tidying up the rubbish, emptying bins or cleaning public toilets! There should be no such thing in life as a free lunch.

Likewise fines should be the percentage of an annual salary with no maximum - council tax should be on the value of a house - state pensions and the NHS should be means tested as wealthy people don’t need this! To have offered energy support to those who earn say 150 plus grand a year is a p iss take! So Livermore gets 25K a week for doing nothing and he’s given energy support - pathetic!

[baggiematt]

I do agree with your latter points Matt in that we need a workforce for the future to support the pensions for the elderly but in reality, I believe that successive governments will endeavour to make private pension provision compulsory with absolutely no opts outs allowed.

I have a a niece who’s a prime example of what’s wrong with the benefits system though.

She’s 30-31 and has 7 kids and has never done a days work in her life.

She’s constantly moaning to the council about her housing situation and had the seventh kid to virtually force the council into getting her a five bedroom house.

On your first paragraph.

I think you underestimate how wage to house ratios looked for many of us in the late 80’s.

My first house was a three bed mid terrace house that cost me £34,500 and at the time I was earning around £6000 to £7000 a year depending on commission.

In 1992 my next home cost me £96,500 and I was earning £12,000 per year.

I think one of the differences between then and now was the determination to save, both my wife and myself had saved significantly before we met and after we did meet we both stayed living with our parents ( and paying board and lodgings ) until we got married, we didn’t waste money on renting a house.

One of my big criticisms of all governments is the lack of making sure that kids are taught at school about saving and planning for life financial matters.

I was lucky, my dad was a rep for a finance company and a stickler for financial prudence.

My wife’s parents were the same, they owned three houses during their lifetime as well as a holiday home in Wales and they never had a mortgage in their lives.

They stayed with parents in the 50’s until they had saved for the first house and then always moved after saving up enough.

I know I’m old fashioned but I just hate seeing babies and toddlers being shoved into day care whilst mum’s work, those first 5-6 years are so important and you can never get them back.

Fair points Mick. I think those days of having 5-6 years with mother being out of work and with the child are gone which is sad.

I do feel they should cut the free childcare hours for those out of work. The argument is that the child misses out on nursery which benefits them in terms of social skills and the parent gets time to become skilled enough to get a job. In practice, it’s the parent getting child free time to watch more Jeremy Kyle!