Theresa May: Childcare Thief

In what world is it ok to forcibly sell somebody else’s product and then refuse to give the original owner what it cost for that product? I’m going to use an analogy most parents like me will appreciate: wine!

Imagine the scenario: I walk into the corner shop with my friend after promising to buy her a bottle of wine, I pick up a nice hearty red costing £6.30, take it to the counter and tell the shop worker that I’m only paying £5 for the wine. The store owner comes along to tell me that they can’t sell the wine at this price because they couldn’t continue to run an effective business, meet the cost of wages, overheads etc if they were to do so. I leave the £5 on the counter, take the wine, give it to my friend as the kind gift I originally offered.

Would you expect either the friend or shop owner to be happy with this outcome? No!

Sure, your friend now has a bottle of wine which they’ve not had to pay for but they feel guilty, in some way responsible for the injustice which has been committed against the shop owner. They might want to pay the difference but be unable to. They might want to give the wine back and go without.

While my friend is making her decision, the police have also been called as what I have done is clearly theft. There’s no ambiguity here; I just stole from the corner shop.

But what if it wasn’t wine? What if it was childcare which was promised as a gift? What if you can’t offer to pay the difference or give the ‘gift’ back to the business owner because without it you can’t afford to work or cover your own bills and outgoings? What then?

This is exactly what is happening all over the country. How is it ok?

A product (childcare), has been forcibly taken and handed out to thousands of families across the country as a nice gift, but the providers are not being given the going rate for their service leaving them on average 20% short.

This isn’t a gift, it’s theft!

Like the shop owner, the nurseries should call the police, right? Unfortunately, the perpetrators in this instance, the thieves, the villain, is the government of this country and there is nothing the victims of this theft can do.

The Telegraph has today reported: “One in five providers surveyed by the National Day Nurseries Association, a childcare charity, are not offering the free 30 hours because they say they cannot afford it. And more than half of those that are participating in the scheme are having to increase parents’ costs.”

The Pre-school Learning Alliance conducted a survey of childcare providers in March 2017 which showed similar results: “Less than half of providers [are] currently planning to roll out the offer, and a quarter saying that it is “likely” they will close”.

The situation is set to get worse. The government’s plan to freeze early years funding until 2019-20 will leave us with an even bigger problem on our hands. Childcare providers will feel the squeeze even more as running costs continue to rise with inflation whilst funding does not.

If everyone is happy with the nation’s children being looked after by the least experienced and qualified staff to keep down staffing costs. Happy with younger, even less experienced staff, to avoid paying the so-called ‘living wage’. Happy with buildings and equipment being updated and maintained less regularly. Happy for lower cost materials, foods, nappies to be used for our children during their most important years developmentally, then we have no problem here. I expect for most people, they wouldn’t be happy for any of these things to become commonplace.

Dear friend, don’t offer me a bottle of wine (especially in order to buy my friendship) if you can’t afford to buy a bottle of wine. Or at least humbly admit that you’re unable to follow through on your kind offer, but please don’t steal the wine.

Dear Conservative Government, don’t offer to provide me with 30 hours free childcare (especially to compete with Ed Milliband’s Labour promise and win my vote) if you can’t afford to pay for 30 hours of childcare at the going rate. Or at least humbly admit that you’re unable to follow through on your kind offer, but please don’t steal the childcare.

Tories Crusade For Morals Does Not Apply To Themselves

By Kelly Grehan

 

Hearing Jacob Rees-Mogg this week brought back memories of my youth in the 1990s when Tory MPs often saw fit to take up moralising.  There was John Redwood‘s condemnation of “young women [who] have babies with no apparent intention of even trying marriage or a stable relationship with the father of the child,” Peter Lilley‘s description of single mothers as “benefit-driven” and “undeserving” and of course then Prime Minister John Major’s ill fated ‘Back To Basics’ campaign in which he declared the Conservative Party as the Party of morality.  Of course, in the years that followed the Major government became synonymous with scandal as Tory MPs, too numerous to mention were outed for affairs and Major himself was revealed to have had a four year affair with Edwina Currie.

 

So , keeping with Tory tradition,  Rees-Mogg, who once wrote an article in The Telegraph in defence of zero-hours contracts, is against foreign aid and who wishes to see the Human Rights Act abolished, this week gave his thoughts on abortion, a right won by women in this country in 1968, saying

 

“The Catholic Church’s teachings are authoritative. There is a moral absolute on abortion — that it is wrong. To take a life after a rape is not the answer. Life begins at the point of conception.  One can only feel compassion for a woman in these situations — which, of course are rare — but it’s hard to see how taking a child’s life makes them better.’

He, having voted against equal marriage, voiced his continued opposition to it.  Maybe he has not noticed that the sky has not fallen in since the fight for lgbt rights was won.

 

Asked whether he would attend a wedding ceremony where both participants were of the same sex he replied ‘ It’s not for me to enforce my morals on others.’  I find this very odd, as if marrying the person you love and want to spend your life with has some sort of moral or immoral connotation.  You know what I see as being morally indefensible?  Voting for policies that encourage poverty, poor health, social division Rees-Mogg’s voting record shows he has no interest in policies supporting better lives for children or families. For example he has

  • consistently voted against against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
  • voted for the bedroom tax, against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
  • voted against a law to make private vehicles smoke-free if a child is present
  • voted against calling on the Government to ensure women and protected groups are not disproportionately impacted by tax and benefit changes and against publication of a gender equality strategy to improve the position of women,
  • voted for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education

 

-I could go on.

 

Another thing I find immoral is people bringing children into this world and being dis-interested in bringing them up!

 

Rees-Mogg this week admitted he said he is not a “modern man” and had never changed a nappy, despite being a father of 6.  In response, former Deputy Labour Leader Harriet Harman, referred to him as a ‘deadbeat dad.’

 

Some may see Mogg’s children who attend the same £14,000 a year school Prince Charles attended as very privileged.  The nanny they have is the same one who raised Rees-Mogg before he went to Eton.  Isn’t it odd that those of lower status who admit to not taking care of their own children, (and I do not mean when they are at work) are held up on various ‘poverty porn’ TV shows for ridicule, but wealthy people who absolve themselves of providing care  for their own children are seen as ‘eccentric?’  I can just imagine the view some of the tory MPs would take of a mother of 6, maybe working a low paid job, maybe with rent arrears who had six children and said she could not change their nappies!

 

Strangely different rules seem to apply to the rich.