John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, thinks it would be best for all concerned if single mothers with small children get back to work. For the very poorest there is a SureStart day nursery.
But I wonder if Hutton or any of the nouveau riche Labour elite used group daycare for their nippers. Somehow I doubt it. Although virtually none of the Blatcherites I have spoken to have actually read the considerable scientific evidence that daycare children are at greater risk of being insecure in relationships, aggressive and indiscriminately friendly, they just seem to instinctively realise that if you are going to have substitute care, a nanny or a granny is best. It would seem that it’s alright for kiddies of sink estate single mums to have daycare but when it comes to Torquil and Samantha, only one-on-one will do.
For full-on Blatcherites, saving on benefits and swelling the ranks of the low-paid workforce, strengthening the hands of employers, is the reason to winkle single mums away from their babies. For Brownites, they honestly believe that only paid work confers dignity and is a moral duty of us all.
Both privately also confess that many mothers from the underclass do the job appallingly, so their children’s life chances are improved if someone else does most of the care. Never mind that the British Social Attitudes survey last week revealed (pdf) that there has been a rise in the proportion of mothers who would like to spend more time parenting and less time working – up to 90%. Never mind that there is overwhelming evidence that under-threes need the care their parents can provide. Never mind that most men and women would like much more flexible working, so that they could share the care between them. The market must have its way with us; Brown’s Americanised values say that only paid activity is of worth.
In fact, if you apply the scientific evidence the absurdities of substitute care as a social policy soon emerge. Under-threes need one-on-one from the same person or a close relative every day. If SureStart substitute care was being done with mental health in mind, you would create a national nanny network. In many cases, this would consist of single mums leaving their babies or toddlers to go to the home of another single mum or toddler to be paid to care for it. In some cases, two single mums would simply be being paid to care for each other’s little children – completely barking, on every level.
Today’s paper also announces that the average cost for a full-time pre-school nursery place has risen to £152 a week. This story, which crops up from time to time as if it is an outrage that childcare costs so much, always makes me laugh – £152 is not nearly enough. Childcare workers are doing incredibly important work and they need to be paid far more. On top of that, to do the job properly, they need to have a ratio of one-to-one, which would require so many carers as to make it impossible for the private providers to make profits.
Having spent a week observing what is probably the best nursery in the world in Copenhagen, I am sure that daycare is a lousy option. In my book (literally and figuratively), since so many of us have been duped into believing that paid work is the only activity of worth, the solution is simple: pay every family with an under-three the national average wage, with either parent able to do the job or share it. Since most of us want to look after our children and since it is best for them, it only serves selfish capitalism not to take this measure. It would also give a strong signal that there’s more to life than The Office and Brownite workaholism.
John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, thinks it would be best for all concerned if single mothers with small children get back to work. For the very poorest there is a SureStart day nursery.
But I wonder if Hutton or any of the nouveau riche Labour elite used group daycare for their nippers. Somehow I doubt it. Although virtually none of the Blatcherites I have spoken to have actually read the considerable scientific evidence that daycare children are at greater risk of being insecure in relationships, aggressive and indiscriminately friendly, they just seem to instinctively realise that if you are going to have substitute care, a nanny or a granny is best. It would seem that it’s alright for kiddies of sink estate single mums to have daycare but when it comes to Torquil and Samantha, only one-on-one will do.
For full-on Blatcherites, saving on benefits and swelling the ranks of the low-paid workforce, strengthening the hands of employers, is the reason to winkle single mums away from their babies. For Brownites, they honestly believe that only paid work confers dignity and is a moral duty of us all.
Both privately also confess that many mothers from the underclass do the job appallingly, so their children’s life chances are improved if someone else does most of the care. Never mind that the British Social Attitudes survey last week revealed (pdf) that there has been a rise in the proportion of mothers who would like to spend more time parenting and less time working – up to 90%. Never mind that there is overwhelming evidence that under-threes need the care their parents can provide. Never mind that most men and women would like much more flexible working, so that they could share the care between them. The market must have its way with us; Brown’s Americanised values say that only paid activity is of worth.
In fact, if you apply the scientific evidence the absurdities of substitute care as a social policy soon emerge. Under-threes need one-on-one from the same person or a close relative every day. If SureStart substitute care was being done with mental health in mind, you would create a national nanny network. In many cases, this would consist of single mums leaving their babies or toddlers to go to the home of another single mum or toddler to be paid to care for it. In some cases, two single mums would simply be being paid to care for each other’s little children – completely barking, on every level.
Today’s paper also announces that the average cost for a full-time pre-school nursery place has risen to £152 a week. This story, which crops up from time to time as if it is an outrage that childcare costs so much, always makes me laugh – £152 is not nearly enough. Childcare workers are doing incredibly important work and they need to be paid far more. On top of that, to do the job properly, they need to have a ratio of one-to-one, which would require so many carers as to make it impossible for the private providers to make profits.
Having spent a week observing what is probably the best nursery in the world in Copenhagen, I am sure that daycare is a lousy option. In my book (literally and figuratively), since so many of us have been duped into believing that paid work is the only activity of worth, the solution is simple: pay every family with an under-three the national average wage, with either parent able to do the job or share it. Since most of us want to look after our children and since it is best for them, it only serves selfish capitalism not to take this measure. It would also give a strong signal that there’s more to life than The Office and Brownite workaholism.