Should we as a State provide public funded childcare?

nesf

View wrote: »

If I recall correctly, Labour proposed such a scheme in the 2002 General election. The electorate did not vote for them in any noticeable (increased) numbers at the time. Therefore, it would seem, that at least then the electorate wasn't particularly interested in the concept.

Hence, the answer should be No unless the electorate suddenly have a change of mind on the issue.

Dear God no! Just because one thing is part of a party's proposals and the electorate don't vote them in does not mean the electorate were voting against that particular proposal! Especially in cases where the election is against an incumbent that just presided over the first big phase of economic growth in a generation (I'm not saying that FF created it, just that they were in office when it happened).

Trouser_Press

I would love to get a dog - a big fecker of a thing, like a Red Setter or Labrador - but

(a) I couldn't afford one at the moment (initial cost of buying it, vet bills, food bills, etc)

and

(b) because I'm out working five days a week I wouldn't be able to look after it - and I sure as hell amn't going to dump him on my elderly mother.

Can anyone tell me why prospective parents don't think the same way when they're contemplating adding to the population?

What law says they must have children, even if they can't afford to have them or won't have the time to look after them?

Seriously, is dumping a baby/toddler in a creche - state-run or otherwise - from 7.0 in the morning til 7.0 in the evening, then grumpily collecting him/her, feeding him/her and depositing him/her in bed at 8.0 really the definition of an idyllic family life?

What was the point of even having this child in the first place??

So, no, the tax-payer should not fund these freaks parents.

nesf

Trouser_Press wrote: »

So, no, the tax-payer should not fund these freaks parents.

Quit trolling/flame baiting.

Heinrich

nesf wrote: »

Quit trolling/flame baiting.

I would tend to disagree with you on that, apart from his/her closing comment! You do need a licence for a dog and it does require a good deal of responsibility to actually own one. By the same token, having is child is a serious decision to make and carries it's own duties and commitments.

This "lone parent" tag seems to conjure up waves of sympathy. In this age of enlightenenment there are adequate measures for family planning, unlike in those dark days of "unmarried mothers" and the Sisters of Charity and the Magdalen Laundries.

It would be the choice of the lone parent whether she has a child or not. It is her decision and it should not be up to the collective to bear the financial responsibility for the offspring.

It is disingenuous to claim that there not not a great number of "career lone parents" availing of state benefits. While the standard taxpayer goes out to his now uncertain job there are people who do not have to worry about how their income arrives.

southsiderosie

aurelius79 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm just so used to the U.S. where there are extracurricular activities from an early age. They were usually attached to the school so were free of charge for parents. I also spent a few summers with the YWCA and they were some of my best childhood memories. This country has a serious lack of basic infrastructure when you consider the millions that have been wasted.

I completely agree with your earlier post that good after school programs (and early care) are needed, especially for older kids in situations where there is little parental supervision (say 3-6pm). The problem in the US though is that the level of extracurricular activities offered by a public school district is dependent on the wealth of the given area. And the only government pre-school program available for many poor families is Headstart; there is relatively little public support for child care (which was a big issue in the 1990s welfare reform bill). The availability of community resources also affects programs like the Boys & Girls Clubs or the YMCA; I spent two years in college working at an after-school YMCA program for inner-city kids in DC, and I spent about half of my measly check every month to buy basic supplies for my kids. The kids who are really poor - or who have absentee/****ty parents - are the ones who need the in-school aftercare and extracurricular programs the most, and unfortunately are the least likely to get them.

I can't say that I think all of the financial support that the Irish state gives to people with kids is a good idea, but I'm not an Irish taxpayer (my tax dollars are wasted in Iraq, rather than welfare :rolleyes:). But I do think expanding after-school and summer educational programs could certainly help with some of the youth hooliganism in urban areas. And maybe volunteering in after-school centers (van pickup, food prep, refereeing, etc) could be mandated as a condition of receiving certain kinds of state aid. There have also been interesting pilot programs in the US, linking the elderly to day care centers - the seniors read to the kids, or do art projects with them - it gives the seniors (many of whom are pretty lonely) something to do, and the kids get extra attention that they wouldn't have otherwise.

mikemac

Heinrich wrote: »

It would be the choice of the lone parent whether she has a child or not. It is her decision and it should not be up to the collective to bear the financial responsibility for the offspring.

It is disingenuous to claim that there not not a great number of "career lone parents" availing of state benefits. While the standard taxpayer goes out to his now uncertain job there are people who do not have to worry about how their income arrives.

Maybe but you've failed to mention widows and widowers and unmarried couples too.
For every road fatality in Ireland, if they are of a certain age it's pretty likely they died leaving a family behind.

Heinrich

mikemac wrote: »

Maybe but you've failed to mention widows and widowers and unmarried couples too.
For every road fatality in Ireland, if they are of a certain age it's pretty likely they died leaving a family behind.

I fully accept your comments. People die, leaving families bereft but we are not discussing those. The ones I refer to are the careerists. I don't understand your point re the unmarried couples... Maybe you could elaborate.

mickoneill30

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why prospective parents don't think the same way when they're contemplating adding to the population?

I'd say because a child is not the same as a dog.

Trouser_Press wrote: »

What law says they must have children, even if they can't afford to have them or won't have the time to look after them?

None.

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Seriously, is dumping a baby/toddler in a creche - state-run or otherwise - from 7.0 in the morning til 7.0 in the evening, then grumpily collecting him/her, feeding him/her and depositing him/her in bed at 8.0 really the definition of an idyllic family life?

Nope. Are you saying that the majority of couples in Ireland should not have kids? Is that your point? Because the majority of couples in Ireland need both partners to work. So the only people that should have kids are the rich or the unemployed. Would you like an Ireland where there are more people retiring than being born?
Having children does actually benefit a country. There are lots of goods and services that are consumed for children and when they become old enough they actually contribute to society. I'd say whatever amount of money my parents received from the government to assist in my upbringing has been paid back 10's or 100's of times over by what I've paid in tax since I joined the workforce.

Having both parents go out to work and leave their child in a creche is not idyllic. Ireland is not idyllic in case you haven't noticed.

Just for reference Trouser_Press what's your situation in life? I don't want to get personal. I'm 35, married and would like kids but we've waited this long because having kids would have been a problem financially earlier on in life. Now we're reasonably well off but both of us will still have to work if we have a child. Should I just give up any thoughts of having a child because it's not idyllic?

mikemac

Heinrich wrote: »

I fully accept your comments. People die, leaving families bereft but we are not discussing those. The ones I refer to are the careerists. I don't understand your point re the unmarried couples... Maybe you could elaborate.

Well I said widows, widowers but I had to include unmarried couples too, you know people who have a family and are together years.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with your point about teenagers and careerists on SW. I just thought to mention the above group as nobody else did on this thread

Lollymcd

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should taxes paid by working parents only be used for services for people with children?

Would it be possible to arrange this? Just joking there, but surely my tax contributions are already subsidising services for people with children? It probably sounds selfish but as a childless person how do I benifit from state provided childcare? Knowing I will be more or less alone in my "golden years" means I have to save accordinly (there will be no one to bail me out if I get something like alzeimers etc etc) why should I pay for someone elses insurance policy, for want of a better word? Children are a choice and also luxury, if you can't afford them, like everything else, you shouldn't have them.

Heinrich

Lollymcd wrote: »

Would it be possible to arrange this? Just joking there, but surely my tax contributions are already subsidising services for people with children? It probably sounds selfish but as a childless person how do I benifit from state provided childcare? Knowing I will be more or less alone in my "golden years" means I have to save accordinly (there will be no one to bail me out if I get something like alzeimers etc etc) why should I pay for someone elses insurance policy, for want of a better word? Children are a choice and also luxury, if you can't afford them, like everything else, you shouldn't have them.

Try this; you work all your life, pay your taxes, SW etc and then folks around here will tell you that the kiddies will be paying your pension when they grow up. Get the idea? You are paying for your pension and the freebie mindset is that the kids are needed to pay for what you have already paid.

There is a tree in Dublin Nort where all de munny for de social welfare grows.

Trouser_Press

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I'd say because a child is not the same as a dog.

I agree, completely. People make much more responsible decisions when it comes to getting a dog.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Are you saying that the majority of couples in Ireland should not have kids?

Um, no. I'm saying that the only people who should have children are those who can afford to have them (you know, mundane stuff - like having the time to look after them and having the money to feed and educate them).

mickoneill30 wrote: »

the majority of couples in Ireland need both partners to work.

Exactly! So these people wouldn't, on the whole, get a dog because they wouldn't have the time to look after it....yet they have no problem having kids

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Having children does actually benefit a country. There are lots of goods and services that are consumed for children and when they become old enough they actually contribute to society. I'd say whatever amount of money my parents received from the government to assist in my upbringing has been paid back 10's or 100's of times over by what I've paid in tax since I joined the workforce.

Sweet ****ing Jesus! So, kids are an investment of sorts? Like buying gold in the current economic climate? Your honour? I rest my case.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Having both parents go out to work and leave their child in a creche is not idyllic. Ireland is not idyllic in case you haven't noticed.

I've noticed that, Mick. And the least idyllic part of it is parents dumping children in creches/with the kids' Granny when (a) they can't afford children and (b) they don't have the time to look after them. It's depressing, but they think they can have it all - and the children are the victims of their selfishness and narcissism.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Now we're reasonably well off but both of us will still have to work if we have a child. Should I just give up any thoughts of having a child because it's not idyllic?

Well, if you can't afford or are not willing to look after your own child, preferring to dump it in a creche or on its granny, I would say no, parenthood is not for you. And don't get a puppy either. :rolleyes:

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

Free childcare doesn't necessarily mean State run childcare. It could be run by private enterprise with the State paying for it and the State running inspections similar to how the Dutch Health system works for hospitals.

What, a bit like the private nursing homes inspections ?
Would it be another tax shelter for the developers or other connected types ?

To trouser_press...
kids actually are an investment in the future or who do you hope pays taxes to cover services you will avail of when you are old ?
If we have less contributing adults (things that kids hopefully eventually grow up into) then we have less of a tax base to cover the older generations.

Since a lot of the posters round here want to contribute nothing towards the next generations, then I propose my kids contribute shag all towards their costs when they are old, decrepit and pissing in their incontinence pants.

Oh wait here comes the refrain about how they will pay for themselves and how they have already paid for these throughout their lives.
Yeah right your taxes have been put aside to pay for your incontinence nappies and the nursing home subvention :rolleyes:
Have they ever thought they have paid for what is being used today and not what will be used tomorrow ?

I as a parent am not asking anyone to rear my children, I and many others do it ourselves thank you very much.
But if anyone can't see how the high cost of childcare in this country has huge knock on affects then they are completly narrowminded.

Even if we don't avail of things we still contribute towards them, it is part of what a state should be about, although we have probably absorbed the US mentality of low taxes and screw those who want services.
Or would some people rather that they only contribute taxes towards things they avail of or use ?

PS to the poster who reckons that the most productive thing that a parent can do is stay at home and look after the kids, I will introduce you to a few women that will tar and feather you.
Should they also wear a burka and not have the vote ?

Manach

To disagree entirely with the above post, by jmayo, it is the government accounting schemes which do not allow workers to adequetly budget for their old age by spending taxpayer money as it arrives. If you think your children would be in a position not to contribute to this, then that is a tad eccentric.

spank_inferno

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the government should have nothing to do with providing childcare.

I know I'm in the minority in that opinion though.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

kids actually are an investment in the future or who do you hope pays taxes to cover services you will avail of when you are old ?
If we have less contributing adults (things that kids hopefully eventually grow up into) then we have less of a tax base to cover the older generations.

And while they are growing up how do we cover the cost of feeding, clothing them, educating them etc? Never mind the costs if they decide to turn to crime, drug or alcohol abuse, of god forbid have children themselves..

You're talking about increasing future tax incomes by having children now, but where does the cost come into it? Every decade the costs involved in raising children have increased dramatically. And we're not even talking about ages 0-18, we're really talking about 0-22/23 since its third level education is so encouraged.

So... considering the state of the Irish economy... the lack of existing and reasonable income for the state... Do you honestly think that we should be encouraging people to have children in an irresponsible manner? By saying irresponsible, I'm talking about being unable to support the costs themselves.

Since a lot of the posters round here want to contribute nothing towards the next generations, then I propose my kids contribute shag all towards their costs when they are old, decrepit and pissing in their incontinence pants.

hmm... I've been a taxpayer in this country since I started working part-time at 16 (never mind all those other taxes we get hit by), and then fulltime at 20. I've never been awarded any grants for education having to pay everything myself. In all likelihood, I've paid for the support of thousands of childrens lives over the last 16 years...

now.. how many years have you paid taxes on your wages? or do these taxes not count as contributing?

Oh wait here comes the refrain about how they will pay for themselves and how they have already paid for these throughout their lives.
Yeah right your taxes have been put aside to pay for your incontinence nappies and the nursing home subvention :rolleyes:
Have they ever thought they have paid for what is being used today and not what will be used tomorrow ?

Simply put, HUH?

I as a parent am not asking anyone to rear my children, I and many others do it ourselves thank you very much.
But if anyone can't see how the high cost of childcare in this country has huge knock on affects then they are completly narrowminded.

Word to the wise... we don't want to rear your children. We want you to do that yourself in a responsible manner. And I'm sure that you do just that. We also want you to be financially secure when entering the responsibility of raising any number of children. Perfectly reasonable, and not any standard we're not prepared to meet ourselves...

Even if we don't avail of things we still contribute towards them, it is part of what a state should be about, although we have probably absorbed the US mentality of low taxes and screw those who want services.
Or would some people rather that they only contribute taxes towards things they avail of or use ?

It doesn't matter. There are costs with running a country. Especially with running a small island country with very little real income and extremely high desires for a rich standard of living.

spank_inferno

jmayo wrote: »

But if anyone can't see how the high cost of childcare in this country has huge knock on affects then they are completly narrowminded.

Guess I'm being narrow-minded but I cant see what the "huge knock on affects" would be.

RedPlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

Word to the wise... we don't want to rear your children. We want you to do that yourself in a responsible manner.

Have you missed the OP?
The proposal was floated on the basis that by providing child care services, the parents are freed up for work and thus contributing to the economy.
Right now there are tons of people whom have children with not a care in the world as our SW system gives them more cash for every child they have.
The current system is supporting (encouraging?) this irresponsibility.

Flamed Diving

Just as a guess, I reckon crèches are expensive because of simple supply & demand reasons. This might to due to cartel-style reasons or because insurance companies limit the number of children a crèche can take. It would not be surprising to find that city crèches are more expensive than rural ones, for the same supply & demand reasons. It's a free market, if prices are so high, a rival crèche could steal consumers away by simply lowering the price. So there is probably more to it than "durr ribbing uz offf!".

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

Have you missed the OP?
The proposal was floated on the basis that by providing child care services, the parents are freed up for work and thus contributing to the economy.

There's a difference between deciding how people rear their children, and asking the parents to work in order to be financially responsible, and thus freeing up resources needed for the economy.

Lollymcd

jmayo wrote: »

PS to the poster who reckons that the most productive thing that a parent can do is stay at home and look after the kids, I will introduce you to a few women that will tar and feather you.
Should they also wear a burka and not have the vote ?

A parent can be male or female, either one can opt to stay at home and look after their children, I know a lot of stay-at-home parents who would like to tar and feather you for suggesting that as primary care givers they are not productive.

There are a few men I know who would look good in burkas....

RedPlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a difference between deciding how people rear their children, and asking the parents to work in order to be financially responsible, and thus freeing up resources needed for the economy.

How do you infer that the proposal is deciding how people rear their children? If a parent doesn't want to place their child in a creche, they don't have to.
If it was a matter of contracting the creches out to different private providers then a range of choice should be available.

I wouldn't like to see dreary places of conformity with our little toddlers standing to attention, hand on hearts, swearing alliegence to flag.
But we are not in the USA so i digress...

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

How do you infer that the proposal is deciding how people rear their children? If a parent doesn't want to place their child in a creche, they don't have to.

Ahh,.. I guess I misunderstood your point then. I assumed you were taking the stance that choosing not to work and staying at home to raise children was a decision they made in rearing their children, and anything which went against that choice, was.. well.... interference...

And I agree if a parent doesn't want to place their child in a creche, they don't have to. They could pass the child on to a child minder, and work extra to pay for the cost. Actually, there's plenty of options out there. Imagine that!

jmayo

Manach wrote: »

To disagree entirely with the above post, by jmayo, it is the government accounting schemes which do not allow workers to adequetly budget for their old age by spending taxpayer money as it arrives. If you think your children would be in a position not to contribute to this, then that is a tad eccentric.

So are all the taxes paid in going to be set aside for the future ?
What happens to current spending ?
The whole idea of the system is that you pay taxes, the government spends that money for the betterment of everyone i.e. society.
Ok stop laughing we know our governments tend to spend for other reasons i.e. looking after their own interests which sometimes coincide with that of society.

Deleted User wrote: »

And while they are growing up how do we cover the cost of feeding, clothing them, educating them etc? Never mind the costs if they decide to turn to crime, drug or alcohol abuse, of god forbid have children themselves..

You're talking about increasing future tax incomes by having children now, but where does the cost come into it? Every decade the costs involved in raising children have increased dramatically. And we're not even talking about ages 0-18, we're really talking about 0-22/23 since its third level education is so encouraged.

So... considering the state of the Irish economy... the lack of existing and reasonable income for the state... Do you honestly think that we should be encouraging people to have children in an irresponsible manner? By saying irresponsible, I'm talking about being unable to support the costs themselves.

hmm... I've been a taxpayer in this country since I started working part-time at 16 (never mind all those other taxes we get hit by), and then fulltime at 20. I've never been awarded any grants for education having to pay everything myself. In all likelihood, I've paid for the support of thousands of childrens lives over the last 16 years...

Word to the wise... we don't want to rear your children. We want you to do that yourself in a responsible manner. And I'm sure that you do just that. We also want you to be financially secure when entering the responsibility of raising any number of children. Perfectly reasonable, and not any standard we're not prepared to meet ourselves...

It doesn't matter. There are costs with running a country. Especially with running a small island country with very little real income and extremely high desires for a rich standard of living.

Did I ever say we should encourage people to go out and have a dozen kids ?
Did I ever say people should provide a bank statement before they decide to have kids ?
Did I ever say that people should not be responsible for their own kids ?
Did I ever say that childcare should be provided for someone on the dole ?

What is your whole thing about people having kids in an irresponsible manner ?
Your whole slant above appears to be lets not have any kids since times are tough.
Your look at the cost for the first 23 years and work out it is uneconomical, what do you suggest we ban children and thus end up with a society of 40 something plus in 20 years.

Who the feck will be around in future to provide tax revenues to keep the place going or will we have saved billions by not having any children ?
Sure we should get rid of the old as well since they are costing us in healthcare and are an economical drain on the country.
Oh wiat they have already contributed so maybe we should keep them until, well until they have used up exactly what they contributed to the revenus.

PS I do not want you or any other person on here to rear my children.

spank_inferno wrote: »

Guess I'm being narrow-minded but I cant see what the "huge knock on affects" would be.

Well lets see the population ages and we end up with huge pension costs, huge healthcare bills and very small taxbase contributing.

Or looking at the immediate impact of high childcare as laid out to me by friend.
After chidlcare she is left with something in the order of about 300 a month. Her choices are leave work and go on dole or continue working.
If she went on dole she wouldn't have to bother her ar** getting up early every weekday morning, bother with hassel of getting to work or bother with stress of work and earn almost as much.
Now is it better to force people to leave work and join dole or try and make sure that childcare doesn't cost so much so that people stay in work.

Yes there are the ones, usually the ones that will sponge anyway off the system, who would want someone else to pay for the care and upbrining of their children, but most parents just want some way that it is not costing them another mortgage per child.

This country is going to have to start making decisions about what type of society it wants for the future.

Lollymcd wrote: »

A parent can be male or female, either one can opt to stay at home and look after their children, I know a lot of stay-at-home parents who would like to tar and feather you for suggesting that as primary care givers they are not productive.

There are a few men I know who would look good in burkas....

Sorry for not being PC.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Did I ever say we should encourage people to go out and have a dozen kids ?
Did I ever say people should provide a bank statement before they decide to have kids ?
Did I ever say that people should not be responsible for their own kids ?
Did I ever say that childcare should be provided for someone on the dole ?

Your posts were easy enough in parts to read. If you're confused over what you said, just reread it. I responded accurately enough to them in the first place.

What is your whole thing about people having kids in an irresponsible manner ?

Well.. I feel that people should consider the financial concerns of raising children before having them. Is that not a reasonable consideration?

Your whole slant above appears to be lets not have any kids since times are tough.

Nope. My whole slant being that people should have put away the money for the initial investment of having children, and be reasonably sure that they will have the salary incomes to support their children in the future. Simple.

Your look at the cost for the first 23 years and work out it is uneconomical, what do you suggest we ban children and thus end up with a society of 40 something plus in 20 years.

Err, no. I responded to your post. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote?

Who the feck will be around in future to provide tax revenues to keep the place going or will we have saved billions by not having any children ?

Ahh, so being responsible about the financial concerns in having and raising children, equates to encouraging people not to have them in the first place? Hardly. I'll repeat it again. Be responsible. Be aware of the costs. Be capable of paying the costs without relying on welfare before having children. There will be plenty of people capable of doing this to look after future generations.

Sure we should get rid of the old as well since they are costing us in healthcare and are an economical drain on the country.
Oh wiat they have already contributed so maybe we should keep them until, well until they have used up exactly what they contributed to the revenus.

You've said this. Not me. I haven't even suggested such a thing.

PS I do not want you or any other person on here to rear my children.

And I have absolutely no desire to raise your children either. I don't have any children myself, and have no desire to do so until I'm in a position to be able to care for them financially. I'm hardly capable of looking after myself financially in this current economic climate. so taking on children would be the height of stupidity.

Well lets see the population ages and we end up with huge pension costs, huge healthcare bills and very small taxbase contributing.

You have yet to show how this would be the case if people acted in a responsible manner to having and raising children... and TBH we already have what you describe..

This country is going to have to start making decisions about what type of society it wants for the future.

Woohoo!! something we can agree on.

Sorry for not being PC.

Doesn't bother me much, since I can't be bothered much with it myself. Speak your mind, not someone else's.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Well.. I feel that people should consider the financial concerns of raising children before having them. Is that not a reasonable consideration?

Nope. My whole slant being that people should have put away the money for the initial investment of having children, and be reasonably sure that they will have the salary incomes to support their children in the future. Simple.

Ahh, so being responsible about the financial concerns in having and raising children, equates to encouraging people not to have them in the first place? Hardly. I'll repeat it again. Be responsible. Be aware of the costs. Be capable of paying the costs without relying on welfare before having children. There will be plenty of people capable of doing this to look after future generations.

You've said this. Not me. I haven't even suggested such a thing.

And I have absolutely no desire to raise your children either. I don't have any children myself, and have no desire to do so until I'm in a position to be able to care for them financially. I'm hardly capable of looking after myself financially in this current economic climate. so taking on children would be the height of stupidity.

I would say most reposnsible parents do look at where they are financially and how they will cope financially with children.
Of course some won't and will always be of the opinion that they get backing fromthe state.
But life is never that simple.
Do you tell a woman in her thirties to keep waiting until she is truly financially sound to have children ? Good luck on that one.
Do you suggest abortion if people accidentally get pregnant ?

People's lives change and their situations change.
They might be financially very well off today, but tomorrow they can be scraping by.
Are people meant to look 10 years into the future ?

What is your definition of being in a position financially to care for them ?
Does it mean you have to have enough money in the bank to cover their entire schooling and college fees ?

Maybe come back to us when you do have children and then we can see if your opinions have changed.
I bet they will, just like someone who can't see problem with healthservice until they are queuing in A&E for 12 hours.

Anyway we are going round in circles, never the twain and all that, time to move on.

tunney

Lollymcd wrote: »

Would the extra tax needed to fund this only be levied on those with children???

Would the tax paid by these children when they growup be used only to contribute to the pensions and healthcare of those senior citizens that had children?

View

nesf wrote: »

Dear God no! Just because one thing is part of a party's proposals and the electorate don't vote them in does not mean the electorate were voting against that particular proposal! Especially in cases where the election is against an incumbent that just presided over the first big phase of economic growth in a generation (I'm not saying that FF created it, just that they were in office when it happened).

I think you miss the point I am trying to make.

We elect members of political parties who - with rare exceptions - vote for the parties' policies (and/or line) on an issue. Therefore, when voting you are in effect choosing policies as much as you are choosing candidates.

If people vote for a party that advocates particular policies then there is some chance that these policies will be delivered on. If they vote for their political opponeents (i.e. ones that do not advocate these particularly policies) then there is no obligation on their political opponents to deliver these policies to the electorate.

And yeah, I do know that it doesn't always follow that the party you vote for can deliver or will deliver on what they promise but if you say there is no link between party choice and policy choice then you are in "Alice in Wonderland" territory. In that scenario, you might as well vote for Joe Higgins if you want PD-style policies and vice-versa as you are in effect saying voting for/against a party has no effect on the policies that will be pursued.

RedPlanet

View wrote: »

I think you miss the point I am trying to make.

We elect members of political parties who - with rare exceptions - vote for the parties' policies (and/or line) on an issue. Therefore, when voting you are in effect choosing policies as much as you are choosing candidates.

Rubbish.
Here's your original post:

If I recall correctly, Labour proposed such a scheme in the 2002 General election. The electorate did not vote for them in any noticeable (increased) numbers at the time. Therefore, it would seem, that at least then the electorate wasn't particularly interested in the concept.

Hence, the answer should be No unless the electorate suddenly have a change of mind on the issue.

You are claiming that because Labour didn't see a noticeable increase after the 2002 GE, it means this specific idea has no interest among the electorate.
You're not making a general statement about party and policies and electoral preference.
In this case, it would require that Public Funded Childcare (Creches) would have been an established party policy, rather than a 1 off, shouting-from-the hip type idea, thown out there for discussion.

It's a bit like Enda Kenny's proposal to cut the number of TD's by 20, thrown out there for discussion more than it is an established FG policy that the electorate votes on.

Joycey

nesf wrote: »

Free childcare doesn't necessarily mean State run childcare. It could be run by private enterprise with the State paying for it and the State running inspections similar to how the Dutch Health system works for hospitals.

Im not sure I see the reasoning behind adding an extra layer of people to be held accountable by those who are actually paying for the service (taxpayers). Could you explain?

I am heavily in favour of this proposal, its absolutely ludicrous to expect parents to either stay at home, or worse again to leave their 10/11 year olds at home on their own for hours after school