There is still a way to go to reach the vision of free, universal childcare. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Political parties woo parents' votes with childcare pledges – but it's not enough

Childcare proposals such as the Lib Dems' announcement this week are not close enough to a vision of free, universal childcare that parents need.

This week the Liberal Democrats made their play for much-coveted parent votes, pledging to extend free childcare to all two-year-olds.

The importance of accessible and affordable childcare can’t be underestimated. Without it, many parents, and particularly single parents, can’t go out to work; either because they can’t afford to, or because there is no-one else to look after their children if they do.

This is something that politicians of all parties have clearly begun to grasp, and each party has its own set of solutions:

  • While in office the coalition government has extended 15 hours of free early years education to disadvantaged two-year-olds; has introduced a bill to deliver tax-free childcare worth up to £2,000 per child each year for middle to high earners from autumn 2015; and plans to increase childcare support for parents on universal credit to up to 85 per cent of costs from April 2016.
     
  • The Liberal Democrats have this week pledged to extend 15 hours of free childcare to all two year olds, trailed as the first in a series of steps towards offering free childcare to all working parents from the end of parental leave until children start school.
     
  • The Labour Party has committed to increase free early years education for three and four year-olds from 15 hours to 25 hours per week for working parents; and has also pledged wraparound childcare for all children from 8am to 6pm in primary schools.
     

While these policies will help parents balance work and family life, there is still a way to go to reach the vision of free, universal childcare that Gingerbread and other family organisations believe government should be working towards.

All parties heavily focus on pre-school childcare, with none specifically addressing provision for children aged 11 and over. A further notable omission from party pledges to date: holiday childcare; any parent emerging from the other side of summer holidays this week will tell you this is impossible to ignore.

School holidays take up a quarter of the year – a massive 13 weeks in total; they affect free early years education for pre-schoolers (which is available term-time only) as well as school children; and in the last five years availability of holiday childcare has halved, while prices have risen by around a fifth.

At Gingerbread we work with single parents, who are particularly reliant on childcare. They can’t do the "shift-parenting" that couples can, for example, taking turns to take annual leave from work over the summer.

This summer we surveyed more than 600 single parents about their experiences of holiday childcare; and the financial and emotional toll it takes was clear to see. A third (34 per cent) told us that they had cut back on spending on food or other essentials, with one parent adding that she had been eating just one meal a day because otherwise she couldn’t afford the food and childcare her children needed over the holiday.

Many more told us they’d driven hundreds of miles to deliver children to stay with grandparents for weeks on end, some even flying in relatives from abroad to provide childcare, while others said they had no choice but to leave their job.

Ultimately, we would like to see all political parties set out their roadmap towards universal free childcare for all 52 weeks of the year, to provide parents with the support they need to balance work and care, in itself vital to increase parental employment from which we all benefit economically. We believe any strategy must include: engaging with employers to increase flexible working; extending the right to request flexible working from job offer onwards; considering using school buildings as childcare facilities; and supporting schools who want to provide childcare during the holidays.

For 13 weeks of the year, single and couple parents are faced with incredibly difficult choices about their children, their job and their finances. It’s time politicians offered some solutions.

Caroline Davey is director of policy, advice and communications at Gingerbread, the single parent family charity

Caroline Davey is the Director of Policy, Advice and Communications at Gingerbread.

Getty
Show Hide image

Expressions of sympathy for terror's victims may seem banal, but it's better than the alternative

Angry calls for "something to be done" play into terrorists' hands.

No sooner had we heard of the dreadful Manchester Arena bombing and before either the identity of the bomber or the number of dead were known, cries of “something must be done” echoed across social media and the airwaves. Katie Hopkins, the Mail Online columnist, called for “a final solution”, a tweet that was rapidly deleted, presumably after she remembered (or somebody explained to her) its connotations. The Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson wanted “a State of Emergency as France has” and “internment of thousands of terror suspects”, apparently unaware that the Nice attack, killing 86, happened after that emergency was declared and that nobody has been interned anyway.

It cannot be said too often that such responses play into terrorists’ hands, particularly if Isis was behind the Manchester bombing. The group’s aim is to convince Muslims in the West that they and their families cannot live in peace with the in-fidel and will be safe only if they join the group in establishing a caliphate. Journalists, striving for effect, often want to go beyond ­banal expressions of sympathy for ­victims. (It’s a mistake I, too, have sometimes made.) But occasionally the banal is the appropriate response.

Pity begins at home

Mark Twain, writing about the “terror” that followed the French Revolution and brought “the horror of swift death”, observed that there was another, older and more widespread, terror that brought “lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak”. The first, he wrote, we had been “diligently taught to shiver and mourn over”; the other we had never learned to see “in its vastness or pity as it deserves”.

That is true: more children across the world die each day from hunger or disease than could ever be killed in a terror attack. We should not forget them. Nor should we forget that the numbers killed in terrorist attacks in, for example, Baghdad far outnumber those killed in all European attacks of our times combined. In an age of globalisation, we should be more cosmopolitan in our sympathies but the immediacy of 24-hour news make us less so.

When all is said and done, however, pity, like charity, begins at home. We naturally grieve most over those with whom we share a country and a way of life. Most of us have been to concerts and some readers will have been to one at the Manchester Arena. We or our children could have been present.

Cheers from Highgate Cemetery

What a shame that Theresa May modified the Tory manifesto’s proposals on social care. For a few giddy days, she was proposing the most steeply progressive (or confiscatory, as the Tories would normally say) tax in history. True, it was only for those unfortunate enough to suffer conditions such as dementia, but the principle is what counts. It would have started at zero for those with assets of less than £100,000, 20 per cent for those with £120,000, 50 per cent for those worth £200,000, 99 per cent with those with £10m and so on, ad infinitum. Karl Marx would have been cheering from Highgate Cemetery.

Given that most people’s main asset – the value of their home – did not have to be sold to meet their care costs until death, this was in effect an inheritance tax. It had tantalising implications: to secure their inheritance, children of the rich would have had to care for their parents, possibly sacrificing careers and risking downward mobility, while the children of the poor could have dedicated themselves to seeking upward mobility.

The Tories historically favour, in John Major’s words, wealth cascading down the generations. In recent years they have all but abolished inheritance tax. Now they have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly, who knows?) conceded that what they previously branded a “death tax” has some legitimacy. Labour, which proposes a National Care Service but optimistically expects “cross-party consensus” on how to finance it, should now offer the clarity about old age that many voters crave. Inheritance tax should be earmarked for the care service, which would be free at the point of use, and it should be levied on all estates worth (say) £100,000 at progressive rates (not rising above even 50 per cent, never mind 99 per cent) that yield sufficient money to fund it adequately.

Paul Dacre’s new darling

Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, is in love again. “At last, a PM not afraid to be honest with you,” proclaimed the paper’s front page on Theresa May’s manifesto. Though the Mail has previously argued that to make old people use housing wealth to fund care is comparable to the slaughter of the first-born, an editorial said that her honesty was exemplified by the social care proposals.

On the morning of the very day that May U-turned, the Mail columnist Dominic Lawson offered a convoluted defence of the failure to cap what people might pay. Next day, with a cap announced, the Mail hailed “a PM who’s listening”.

Dacre was previously in love with Gordon Brown, though not to the extent of recommending a vote for him. What do Brown and May have in common? Patriotism, moral values, awkward social manners, lack of metropolitan glitz and, perhaps above all, no evident sense of humour. Those are the qualities that win Paul Dacre’s heart.

Sobering up

Much excitement in the Wilby household about opinion polls that show Labour reducing the Tories’ enormous lead to, according to YouGov, “only” 9 percentage points. I find myself babbling about ­“Labour’s lead”. “What are you talking about?” my wife asks. When I come to my senses, I realise that my pleasure at the prospect, after seven years of Tory austerity, of limiting the Tories’ majority to 46 – more than Margaret Thatcher got in 1979 – is a measure of my sadly diminished expectations. l

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 25 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Why Islamic State targets Britain

0800 7318496