Not Grandparents Harriet !

Harriet Harman proposes that Grandparents should receive funding for caring for grandchildren. (An exception to my argument that follows is if they are the main carer...where they are currently treated as an exception I believe). BUT ..... we must avoid this slippery slope as if this became the case then the ONLY ! THE ONLY !!!! person who was not entitled to be subsidised / paid to care for a child would be that child's own mother.

This flies in the face of everything.

In the animal kingdom mother animals care for their young.

And many of us still want to care for our young. At least at that very young age when you can show them the world. Why would you want to hand this over to a childcare worker ?

 At age 3, if you know about child psychology, at that point, interactions with other children become more important and at that age a few hours at nursery or playgroup can work well. And then at age 5, maybe with a run in of a few half days to get everyone used to it, then 9-3 school days work well. Now it may be that the next best model once kids are at school is for a parent to work part time, at least one of the parents anyway, and this is the preferred option among about 80% of parents surveyed. So maybe kids can cope with a couple of days of breakfast club or after school. But on the other days its great to be able to come home, bring a friend home some days or go to play at a friend's house, or come home after a hard day at school, switch on Children's TV/Minecraft or whatever your "thing" is, and have a snack and drink and put your feet up. Surely we can afford this for families - it's called "family life" - what happened to it ? It still happens in many families, but that is no longer acknowledged in the political classes....but in other families its been lost .... and for some, they say that working is maybe a necessity and for those families there should be financial support. But... if working is really for "you time" or a BMW, or a holiday in Dubai ... then think about it.

What is important ... 

material things ?    

... or human relationships and your relationship with your kids ?

Because kids grow up .... and even more important is your relationship with your teenagers / young adults - if you can keep communications flowing then its better for everyone - and better for "family" !

Alex Salmond, Childcare and the SNP - Independent Scotland ? And a bit about David Cameron and his friends too !

I have been trying to think how best to reply to Alex Salmond's latest idea to have free universal Childcare in the new Independent Scotland.

He wants to emulate Sweden but before reading what I have to say below, read this cry for help from Sweden - http://www.barnensratt.se/index-en.htm?news-en.htm

My thoughts, as I tried to compose my letter to a newspaper are too many to include in one letter, so here are the various angles from which I view this whole issue of childcare, benefits, families etc.

1   Many people believe that it is by no means ideal for children to be placed in full time care in a nursery from the age of 1.  Many parents and psychologists believe that up until the age of 3, a child should have one primary carer. Usually up until now this care has been done by the mother but many fathers now also take on this role.  Interestingly it's often full time fathers who get the interviews on radio and the media publicity ! But as a full time mother myself for a few years, I did meet some full time fathers and I also met some parents who shared care by having two part time jobs or two jobs on different shift patterns.

However, leaving aside the pros and cons of nursery care vs stay at home parent, it should be recognised that families should be free to choose either option and in both cases a financial sacrifices have been made. If nursery care is chosen, up to now that has involved some financial sacrifice although it is subsidised through some benefits, but, if one parent gives up a job or goes part time to care for their own child this also involves a massive financial sacrifice and yet the latter option is not supported in the benefits system at all for either low income parents or middle income families.

And we are being encouraged to take on the Swedish system (a high tax country by the way !), but in Sweden, stay at home parents of young children receive 1/6 of the average pay to support their valid choice to stay at home. And Australia is also looking to adopt this model, partly to filll the gap in a lack of recruits to the childcare "industry".

Which takes me to another thought....it does not seem to be seen as a valid choice to look after your own children yet we expect young women (usually) to take on this role as childcare workers !

And again, this also brings to mind the annoying statement from was it George Osbourne in 2013, who stated that being a full time mother was a "lifestyle choice " - how insulting.  I would invite him to watch videos of my children having a fantastic childhood - full of laughter etc and they also spent every day at toddler groups, swimming, playgroup at age 3 - tell me to my face that I made a "lifestyle choice" George !

2   The second part of this issue is that the SNP seem to see this policy's main benefit as being to generate income !  I have heard that stated a few times.  However this is based on the idea that all the mothers will return to the workforce.

But....as one childcare worker is needed for every 3 or 4 children aged under 3 (see ref 1) then what I would say is why not free up that childcare worker to take a full time job and instead use the subsidised childcare money to divide between the parents of those 3 or 4 children, giving them 1/3 of a wage to stay at home.  = SORTED !!   And .... it would leave two extra jobs to be taken by two other people.  So if you pay the subsidy to the stay at home parents, it still leaves 3 people in the workplace and 3 happy people paid to stay at home.  If the nursery option is taken then you have only 4 people working and two unemployed people needing a job and needing unemployment benefit.

In Summary :

Using Nursery :
--- 3 parents return to work   -----   1 childcare worker -----  2 unemployed people in society

Subsidising the parents instead to care for own children :
--- 3 happy parents ----------- 3 workers taking the vacated jobs from the parents

So I hate to tell you Alex Salmond and Co. - it would pay to have people look after their own children - and they would be more economically active out taking their children to swimming pools etc than sitting in an office or stuck in a nursery !

3  With Regards to Independence Debate for Scotland

With regards to the Independence debate, I am sorry that this issue has become part of the debate at all. I was all for voting for Independence. I would like Scotland to be a thriving, modern European country, fully integrated and trading in Europe. I have seen many of our modern IT and engineering/design companies which tend to be invisible generally but are tucked away in numerous business parks etc.
However the concern for many parents is actually where are our teenagers and graduates going to get work? Currently many graduates have to work abroad. And not through choice in many cases. And graduates and students are taking all the jobs in supermarkets etc and it is now almost impossible for those aged 16-18 to actually get a part time job, certainly in the Glasgow area.

4  And finally the benefits system must be changed so that family benefits come directly to families and are not tied to childcare use.  The current childcare tax credits, child tax credits etc provide subsidies of up to £23,000 for nurseries for a 2 child family.  Both parents must do at least 6 hours of work to get these benefits.  So there is a huge pressure and a huge amount of money involved in pressuring low income mothers back to work.

But similarly at middle incomes, families where one parent earns £60,000 have now lost their one last benefit and no longer receive child benefit.  The partner may either not work or may be working part time on a low income but the overall family income is not taken into account. So that anomaly is that a family on 2 x £49,000 income (ie joint income of £98,000) will keep ALL their child benefit, which amounts to about £2,000 for two children.  In addition those parents have not been hit by the 40% tax rate so much AND, they receive two personal allowances.  So, society has decided to reward those families.  But...often the two parents on the £49,000 income are in maybe state employed secure jobs. No worries - they can get a mortgage and know they have a job for life. They can make plans !! Lucky them !!

But contrast this with the family with one parent on £60,000 - often this salary has been achieved by them working overtime, working abroad or away from home or unusual hours. You don't get a salary for that for nothing in most parts of the UK !  Maybe in certain better off areas you do but not in Scotland !! However the other side of this story is that often this entails the other partner having to reduce their hourse, take a less responsible job etc or becoming self employed and working from home. This is why there are many families with one main earner and one lesser earner.  But....has David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the government taken this into account in their policies ?  You got it - NO!   A big fat NO.
Come on guys you must do better - did they not teach you to look at the whole picture at Eton ?!?!??
Come to think of it....what did they teach you ?

Ref 1 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219660/More_20Great_20Childcare_20v2.pdf

Child Benefit

A mother (or father) at home is not a burden on the state – far from it – he/she is actually bringing up his/her own children. In fact you could cast her as an entrepreneur or even running a small business !

Whereas a mother and/or etc father who both work are actually more of a burden as they are expecting other people to bring up their children. And even though they are earning two incomes they expect to be subsidised and are very often subsidised via child tax credits, child benefit (which is more available to these couples) and childcare voucher tax breaks/nanny tax. Even when their earnings are in the £100,000s they can claim tax breaks on the money they pay towards childcare. The nurseries and the nursery nurses etc are subsidised often by local councils and very often local councils provide free advertising of their services.

Meanwhile the mother who is looking after her own children – whether by desire or by circumstances, has given up her own salary to look after her children.

However in both cases, children do not look after themselves. We need to get our heads around this. Someone has to care for them. And in both cases there should be money going towards that, if we value those children for our society.
We do need children – demographically the population of the UK is aging and we need workers etc to provide income to support the retired and older members of that society. More to the point, we need educated, well behaved children who can contribute to that society. Families and
society can judge how this can best be achieved. Most families, even when the mother “stays at home”, will take children to become involved in toddler groups, playgroups and at the age of 3 they are entitled to a part time nursery place. This can be good for children and often these places can provide the activities like painting, arts and crafts, outdoor play etc that would be difficult to provide at home every day ! I would suggest as a minimum for society we should ensure that all children are brought to such activities so that mothers are integrated into society and families are not allowed to languish “at home”.

But my current complaint is the lack of subsidies or funding via the benefit system for “stay at home” parents .
And added to that the fact that benefits and tax breaks are actually being given to very well off parents is just madness when finances in society are so tight.

The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government need to quickly rethink this as we are now talking about a discrepancy of £5,000 a year between a family with one earner on £60,000 as opposed to a family with two earners on £30,000 when you take into account two personal tax allowances for the second family, the first family pays 40% rate of tax and only the first family loses child benefit. That is the difference of a new car every year in tax paid !!!!!!

But even more ridiculous is a family with both on £50,000 can keep child benefit, get two personal allowances and can probably claim back some tax in childcare voucher scheme.
And even richer families I believe can use the childcare voucher scheme.

I can give you an example of a stay at home mother who “stayed at home” for the years her children were young, but is now self employed and working numerous hours a week to earn £5,000 to £10,000 but what is annoying is that her earnings are basically just going straight into what other families get to keep as tax – its very annoying to say the least ! Yet another family with two earners on £30,000 and £40,000 get to keep the tax.

Also you might think I am talking about rich families here, but a family with one earner on £60,000 actually end up with after tax the same as a family with two earners on the minimum wage. So we are not talking about very well off families here, much as the government would like to make it seem like it !!

And here is a graphic of the discrepancies when the total income is £70,000, there is a difference of up to £7,500 in net income after tax etc depending on whether there is one or two earners and how much each earn – this is plainly unfair. Particularly as among my friends the people who have a husband (or wife) on a large salary like £70,000, then its often due to them having to work away or abroad or at least away for a few nights each week. So there are reasons for the big salary and often this makes family life more complicated and necessitates that the other parent is more available for looking after the children.