Author
|
Topic: Feds cancel day-care funding plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219
|
posted 24 February 2006 03:29 PM
quote: "It's full-time or nothing. We're actually encouraging the parents to go back to work and to leave their kids at a time when it's important to spend as much time as possible with them, and when those parents want to spend the time with their children. "There have been many studies that show that the best people to raise children are the parents.''
Sounds like something straight out of an "r.e.a.l. women" press release. So is the government prepared to put a whole whack of single parents on welfare for the sake of their staying home and raising their kids? How many children already live in poverty in this country???
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 24 February 2006 03:46 PM
quote: Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says his government has a mandate to scrap the child-care deals with the provinces in favour of a tax credit for parents.... It was unclear if Flaherty misspoke or was signalling a departure from the election promise when he referred to the payment as a tax credit. Canadian Press
quote: At least two premiers want to raise the thorny issue of day-care funding when they meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa on Friday night.cbc.ca
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 24 February 2006 04:12 PM
quote: At a corporate breakfast Friday attended by Flaherty, Toronto Mayor David Miller said his city will suffer a major blow under the new federal child care plan."The people of Toronto are being short-changed," Miller said. He said the $1,200 won't replace the 6,000 spaces the city was going to create in some of Toronto's poorest neighbourhoods. CTV.ca
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 24 February 2006 04:19 PM
quote: Do the Tories absolutely have to murder the English language while they proceed about their other destructive business?
Yes -- it's essential to their essentially destructive business. quote: Despite assurances that the political elite is interested only in what works, this is the most intensely ideological period of government we have known in more than a hundred years. The model of market-managerialism has largely destroyed all alternatives, traditional and untraditional. Its most powerful weapon has been its vocabulary. We are familiar with the way this language has carried all before it. We must sit on the cusp, hope to be in a centre of excellence, dislike producer-dominated industries, wish for a multiplicity of providers, grovel to our line managers, even more to the senior management team, deliver outcomes downstream, provide choice. Our students are now clients, our patients and passengers customers. It is a language which was first devised in business schools, then broke into government and now infests all institutions. It has no real historical predecessor – there was no equivalent ‘Keynesian’ vocabulary in the 1940s and 1950s – and is peculiarly seductive. It purports to be neutral: thus all procedures must be ‘transparent’ and ‘robust’, everyone ‘accountable’. It is hard-nosed but successful because the private sector on which it is based is hard-nosed and successful. It is efficient; it abhors waste; it provides all the answers. It drove Thatcher’s enterprise culture. It lies behind Cameron’s social entrepreneurs.It is more powerful than the kind of language Flaubert satirised in the Dictionnaire des idées reçues since, however ridiculous it might be, it determines the way our political (and economic) elites think of the world.
Yes, that article is about New Labour. It makes very little difference.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mamitalinda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5510
|
posted 24 February 2006 04:20 PM
"To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way. And every family will have $100 more a month minus any taxes owed than they would have." No, see, because there was this child care agreement with the provinces that would have created more spaces and cut the cost of existing spaces. So, combined with nothing to mitigate the loss of the five year funding and the resulting rate increases, we will actually be worse off.
Now, if Harper will just fund my mother's early retirement, I'm sure she will be pleased to look after my son day in and day out in exchange for $1200. No, wait, I'm not sure. Truth be told, were it an ideal world, I'd like to work about 50 or 60% of the time and look after my son the rest of the time. Partly because I *enjoy* my job, and partly because my son gets a lot out of his early learning program. But guess what: $1200 a year ain't gonna cut it. So I would rather fight for a national early learning and child care program, and enjoy the time I have with my son. I'd like to think that his growth and development as a human being is valued by our government. But I guess not. [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: mamitalinda ]
From: Babblers On Strike! | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 24 February 2006 04:29 PM
HEY, OTTAWA There's a vigil at 24 Sussex Drive at 6:00 p.m. TONIGHT. Join child care workers and activists, parents, and children as they demonstrate while provincial premiers meet and eat with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, plans to attend. [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 24 February 2006 04:55 PM
Daycare for arborboy is $50 a day. If he's sick, he can't go (but we have to pay anyway). If we take vacation, we pay to keep the space. If the grandparents come to visit for a day or a week, we still pay for daycare.I understand - the daycare needs to be paid for the space. It still hurts though - we've paid for 3 days this week that we didn't use, instead taking days off work and working very wacky hours to keep things moving. Harper's $100 a month is a fucking joke. We were so close, for the first time in decades, to a real functioning child care system. Shit. Shit Shit Shit. We pay almost $8000/year for child care. For all intents and purposes, I work 2 days a week to pay for child care. Fuck. At least we are both employed in flexible jobs - the idea of being a single parent, or even just working fixed schedules and trying to manage this fills me with awe. Politics has become personal, again. Killing daycare is the most effective way of pushing (mostly) women out of the workforce and into the home, where the Conservatives prefer they remain. Fuckers.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:21 PM
Listening to the Premier's conference on education and Charest and McGuinty ramble on about how a NATIONAL program is needed, a NATIONAL concensus is needed, NATIONAL standards and NATIONAL funding, its rather ironic that today we see the NATIONAL CHILD CARE AND EARLY EDUCATION program officially cancelled, isn't it?PENTICTON: Changes concern child care providers quote: When the Conservative government follows through on its plan to phase out child care transfer funding it will make a difficult local situation even worse, says Kim Lyster, executive director of the Penticton and District Community Resources Society. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during the federal election campaign that he would like to replace the transfer payment program put in place by the Liberal government with a $1,200 a year taxable child tax credit. If those subsidies are replaced by the $1,200 a year child care allowance, it will “significantly jeopardize” parents’ ability to pay, said Lyster. “The thing that is most alarming about Mr. Harper’s agenda of offering families $100 a month is that it doesn’t equal, in any way, shape or form, the real cost of child care,” she said.
LONDON: Harper child-care plan hits poor families, council told
quote: A study by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy shows a couple that together earn $30,000 a year and who now get subsidies worth $3,000 would, under the Harper plan, be left with only $460, because the $1,200 promised would be taxed as a benefit and offset by the loss of other child benefits.The same study shows a windfall for a couple that has one parent at home and the other earning $100,000. Instead of getting nothing, as is now the case, the couple could keep $1,032 a year as there would be no other benefits to lose and the $1,200 would be taxed at the rate of the stay-at-home parent. "It's going to be the most vulnerable and the most in need of child care who will receive the smallest benefit," Eagle said. By a vote of 18-1, council authorized Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco to write Harper, as most Ontario mayors are doing, to ask him to continue subsidizing child care at the rate promised by the previous Liberal government. Only Coun. Rob Alder objected. "The other side of the coin
(looks like Alder needs de-electing himself) LEEDS-GRENVILLE: Future of child-care initiative here unclear quote: Proponents of the area's Best Start child-care initiative hope not to see it come to a sudden stop any time soon.But with a new federal government elected partially on a distinct child-care platform, the future of the program after one year is anything but clear.
(Sudden stop? So far, the brakes are on...)
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by writer: I'm thinking about something very different from a strike. How about challenging the politicians to live by their words?$3 a day for childcare - Okay, ask MPs to take the kids for that rate. They kiss the babies to get elected. Now they can take care of 'em - either by providing a decent childcare program, or by taking them into the House.
writer, this is exactly what I was thinking when I was listening to the radio this morning with clenched teeth. Time for parents to take their children to Conservative politicians' constituency offices, and let them run around there. All day long. Dump the lunch on the desk and tell them to feed their kids when they get hungry. Then sit there and watch while the kid goes nuts in the office (i.e. let the staff get the kids away from the papers and the desks, don't lift a finger to do a thing to take care of the children). Obviously you don't want to drop them off there, or the cretins will claim you abandoned them (and who would want to leave children with Conservatives anyhow?). Everywhere those fuckers are, bring your kids. For hours. Change shitty diapers on their desks. Let the kids scream and yell.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Pinko525: To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way.And every family will have $100 more a month minus any taxes owed than they would have.
Please do some basic math. Even assuming it will be $100, (which it won't becuase it is taxed) That works out to 100/4.33 (Converts months into weeks) equals $23.09 a week. I do most of the day time childcare in our family. However, my work schedule is only so flexible and then there is the reality of seeding and farm work. $23.09 does not even cover a single full day of childcare for us. Even in informal care it would hardly do it. Nor will it do anything to help keep small town and rural childcare spaces open. This is stupid ideology trumping what is best for families. I found it interesting that the people who thought this was a good idea during the election fell into two camps. Camp one. Don't need child care anymore. Camp two. Already at home, often home schooling. For those who have had to make the hard decision to be in the workforce while we raise our children we could see it was unworkable. [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:28 PM
Exactly, Michelle. I've already registered the domain name - kissthebaby.ca. It would also be nice to get testimonials from adults who went to day care, from those who go to day care (they would be children), from parents whose kids go to day care, from people who teach at daycare, and from those who are DESPARATE for day care. Anybody wanting to get involved in this, please do PM me. [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:32 PM
I might want to get involved myself; I'm an opponent of Harper's plan (which was pure electioneering but also speaks to his makeup, twisted as it is).I'm already getting heat from the party (the Conservative party) for speaking out constantly on the Emerson and Fortier affair. I wrote this in response. quote: What I am is a Canadian first, Conservative Party member second, which is as all members should be. Who should be surprised that there are differing voices within the party? I would worry more if there were none.Political parties are not homogeneous pools of opinion – dissent within the party is important. In our history, dissent has played an important role in shaping this country. Dissent keeps us honest and on our toes. Dissent helps us all strive to do a little bit better, next time. Dissent is healthy. Conservatives should not succumb to group think, and automatically and unquestioningly go along with what the leadership or cabinet says or does. Father does not always know best. Conservatives should not assume that our party will always be on the correct side of an issue. Conservatives ought not to believe that principle matters only when we are not in government, nor should we relax our ethical standards for the sake of expediency, by approving the wrong-headed notion that the end justifies the means. Conservatives should not believe that criticizing the government of the day is a job only for the opposition.
Anyway, I'll certainly do testimonials from the perspective of a parent that used govt co-funded day care and also found private day care lacking or uneven in quality; my kids might even throw a word in (6 and 8 years old); and I know many parents who will speak out. As far as I'm concerned, early ed is where its at. The kids in Kindergarten that tend to have problems are those who have never experienced early ed, **with other kids in a group setting**. [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:47 PM
quote: This is stupid ideology trumping what is best for families.
Yes, several sorts of ideology conflated, in fact. Asked during the campaign how this would create more day-care spaces, Harpoons came back with a fusillade of styrofoam in which only three words were intelligible: "choice" and "free market." They appeared to believe, or to believe they could get the voters to believe, that this massive injection of money into the Canadian economy would inspire a new generation of child-care entrepreneurs to leap into action and find ways to provide care -- at $3 per child per day (before taxes). Even by mod Cons standards, it was insulting to the intelligence to be told this, or to hear it implied in public. [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 24 February 2006 05:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Watkins: I As far as I'm concerned, early ed is where its at. The kids in Kindergarten that tend to have problems are those who have never experienced early ed, **with other kids in a group setting**.[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]
This was a significant impetus behind the push for daycare in Quebec, when many kindergarten teachers noted that a lot of children from impoverished families were having trouble in school right from the start.
As well, in France, kids start public schooling at age 3. Not formal schooling, of course, but socialization, play and learning. Socialization doesn't happen so easily when you have only one kid at home under the age of 5.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 February 2006 06:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by retread: The NDP position should be that parents get a choice of the $1200 (lots of rural folks could never use a daycare because of population density, and some stay at home types don't use daycare in any case) or use a gov't funded daycare. Best of both worlds, everyone wins, and it cuts the feet out from both the Liberal and CPC positions.
I can't believe anyone can seriously entertain this Conservascam. Daycare is about unchaining women from the kitchen and nursery so they can work and take their rightful place in the society. It is an obligation that society owes to the fight for equality between men and women, nothing else. If rural folks and voluntary stay-at-homes don't need daycare, why exactly are we giving them money??? Wait, I know: How about getting rid of medicare and give every Canadian $10,000 per year??? That way it's fair for the people that need it (the sickies -- provided they don't get too sick), and the healthy ones too! By the way, here's a letter from the CAW to Harper on the issue: Buzz Hargrove to Stephen Harper re child care [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934
|
posted 24 February 2006 08:50 PM
To be extremely reactionary myself, not only does it keep women at home with their toddlers, but I'd bet money it's meant to keep women out of the boardroom and out of the Canadian political scene.Find out when your MP is in the constitutency office, book them now for the 20 minutes they allow, bring the toddlers, and book til the next election. kissthebaby.ca [ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Toedancer ]
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 24 February 2006 10:36 PM
Note the divisive language: quote: Finley countered that daycare "institutions'' often aren't available in rural areas or are too inflexible to offer night or part-time care."It's full-time or nothing. We're actually encouraging the parents to go back to work and to leave their kids at a time when it's important to spend as much time as possible with them, and when those parents want to spend the time with their children.
Of course to most of us, these are arguments in favour of expanding daycare services so that there are more services in rural areas and for night shift workers. Its playing to the "politics of envy" and attempting to pit folks in rural areas (the main base of Conservative support...particularly in Ontario) against folks in urban areas. They're hoping that folks in rural areas will think "gee, I'll never get a daycare centre...but at least I'll get an extra hundred bucks a month". That's the game that the reformatories are going to play...and of course the undercurrent is also playing to the conservative evangelical types who think of daycare as a vast socialist secular humanist conspiracy to poison the minds of young children. Anyway, left progressive folks will need to be ready to combat the reformatory propaganda. Also, I think this is a "bring down the government" issue.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Arctic Pig
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11568
|
posted 24 February 2006 10:54 PM
I've been trying to figure this one out, and I'll tell you what. I think you're right. I don't know how a throne speech with this backtrack on childcare in it, or any money bill with these changes in it, will ever pass in the House. Harpo's playing a confidence game! (Sorry...)This is a stupid, stupid situation, and if Harpo and the Cons keep up the good work, the government will fall by May. The question is, what then? Back to the polls? Maybe not. The G-G is certainly aware how election-weary we are. Maybe she will ask other party leaders in the House to attempt to form a government with a reasonable expectation of confidence. But the Liberals are leaderless. Having a separatist as PM would be too postmodern even for Canada. So the only possible candidate for PM after Harpo blows his horn is... Jack Layton! (Or, at least this seemed plausible over beers with my NDP friend...!)
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664
|
posted 25 February 2006 07:38 AM
I oppose the Tory paln and favour a fully public system but let's get real. The Liberals promised this in every election over the last 25 years and never delivered.They too must think it is only a gift to the mythical "welfare mom" syndrome. Under the old system you could still recoup through tax credits 75% of the cost. That is still in place only now the government will add another $100.00 to the kitty. Hardly socialism but $100.00 more than the Liberals gave - ever. And it is symbolic benefit as well and people could lobby for it being increasedto $500/mo per child. That would make a dent in the problem parents face. Hargrove is lame.
From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747
|
posted 25 February 2006 08:08 AM
quote: Anyway, left progressive folks will need to be ready to combat the reformatory propaganda. Also, I think this is a "bring down the government" issue.
I agree that this issue might bring the governtment down but I think that there is a very easy way out for Harper and if you read between the lines it is already happening. Finney's comments were just stupid (attacking the value of early ed), but Harper's point about the provinces having the right to continue the plan are absolutely the way he'll get out of this (if he's smart). All he has to do is take a page from Paul Martin and and make CHST style arguments (provinces receive cash from the feds, and they can do with it as they please). So if he does something towards addressing "the fiscal imbalance", he will be able to say that he has delivered on his promise for $1200 a year and given provinces every opportunity to continue the to create child care spaces if they so choose. Quite frankly, a big part of me doesn't want the provinces to be left of the hook on this one. Remember, Quebec did it without Fed support. I'll be damned if I'm going to let McGuinty off the hook on this one. As soon as the extra cash for provinces bit is hammered out, Hampton should go on the offensive, demanding that the provincial Liberals follow through on child care anyway. Manitoba is going ahead anyway, other provinces should follow suit. BTW, I think that baby occupations of Federal Tory offices are a great idea, but there's no friggin way that I'm going to let Baird near my child.
From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957
|
posted 25 February 2006 10:59 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
I can't believe anyone can seriously entertain this Conservascam. Daycare is about unchaining women from the kitchen and nursery so they can work and take their rightful place in the society. It is an obligation that society owes to the fight for equality between men and women, nothing else.
No, daycare is about helping poor parents raise their children. The rich don't need gov't daycare, and they don't need financial help. The middle class and poor need both. But if you're rural and not rich (most rich people are urban btw), you won't live anywhere close to a daycare center ... there are people who don't live in cities. Some of us pretend (at least to ourselves) we matter too. Unless you're thinking the gov't should create daycare centers everywhere were any parent needs one ... maybe every farm since that'd be convenient? Cheaper to give the $1200 in remote areas.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 25 February 2006 11:20 AM
quote: Originally posted by retread: No, daycare is about helping poor parents raise their children. [...] Unless you're thinking the gov't should create daycare centers everywhere were any parent needs one ... maybe every farm since that'd be convenient? Cheaper to give the $1200 in remote areas.
No, daycare is about releasing women from the home. Poor parents don't need "help" raising children. They need money, which means good jobs, which means the freedom to leave the house and go to work, so they can get out of the poverty cycle. And yes, I was indeed thinking that the gov't should facilitate daycare wherever parents need it. Just like health care and education. Thank you for putting it in such a clear form. And no, it's not "cheaper" to give $1200 instead. It's cheaper to give people $0, and put all the available money in creation of daycare. There -- how much money did I just save the taxpayers?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 25 February 2006 11:20 AM
I'm sixtyseven, and a grandma. Yesterday, for a number of reasons, I was "kid care" for three grandchildren aged 5, 4, and 17 months. I love these kids, I'm told I "spoil" them and "indulge" them. I enjoy their company and I'm made humble by their gallantry and courage. And after three and a half hours I was just about wiped out! After lunch we had us a "snoozie", which is NOT to be confused with a nap because some of us are big little grrrls and too old for naps, now. Nobody slept. But we did all lie down and compare feet. The girlfriends are absolutely fascinated by the fact Grandma's feet are as white on the top as they are on the bottom. Their feet are white on the bottom and "bwown" on top. Big discussion as to why that was. Five year old decided Grandma has been around so long she has faded, like her blue shirt did.Finally, dad came home. Snoozy over, and time for some ice cream and dad made Grandma a much needed cup of coffee... and child care workers get minimum wage? How do they DO it? I can't imagine surviving a 40 or 50 hour week with , say, ten of the little treasures. It isn't just this pack of neo-con nutbars who tell lies about how they truly feel toward children. The LiEbrals have years of underhanded hidden oppression of the children of this nation. And I'm sorry, I saw how committed to kids the NDP was when they were in the driver's seat in B.C., and it was underwhelming. Education has been slashed, bashed, and cut back to the point it is almost irrelevant in terms of public schools. It's "dumb'em down time", the fewer informed people we have the easier it is for the shitheads to acquire more wealth. And how smart do they have to be to march lefty righty into the jaws of death? How much education will they need to be blown to grue in pursuit of more oil, more control, more more more? And too many sit in their warm living rooms watching bullshit like last night's "Wanted" where sociopaths employed in law enforcement went over the border into Mexico, broke Mexican law, assaulted and kidnapped a "perp" and took him back to the Hew Hess Hay for "justice" ... and were made to look like heroes doing it!! But we aren't supposed to realize that programme is brainwashing our youth to accept that the mangy bird can do what it wants where it wants when it wants. It and "24" and several other propogandic pieces of crap! And we'll just dumb'em down, put them in such straitened circumstances they see joining the military as a step UP in the world... have them so desperate for a job they'll take anything and swallow the shit sandwiches.. It is no accident that those who have had power for most of our lives have ignored and abused generations of children. Children, if they survive childhood, become adults, and adults have to be herded and conditioned because if you don't keep'em in line the buggers get unruly and then, pray tell me, where would we be? Why profit might stop pouring into the pockets of less than four per cent of the population and it might find it's way into the pockets of the 96 per cent and we cannot have that. Get those goddam women back into the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, subservient and silent, and get those goddam men out there hewers of wood and drawers of water and get back to the good old days where they tipped their raggedy caps when the NICE people passed. No day care for anybody! No education, no NOTHING AT ALL. Cause God said so, so there.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 25 February 2006 11:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by anne cameron: No day care for anybody! No education, no NOTHING AT ALL.Cause God said so, so there.
This just in: quote: OTTAWA - In a surprise development that has pundits scratching their heads, God announced today that he was crossing the floor to accept a Conservative cabinet post as Minister for Alternative Daycare Delivery."I simply got tired of being on the side of the angels," a beleaguered Deity intoned, clearly bemused at the unexpected media attention generated by his sudden switch. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was unapologetic at having recruited God. "I've asked Him to personally take charge of finding creative ways of giving people back part of their tax dollars instead of pooling them to provide necessary social services," Harper said. "God knows, the Church has been doing just that for centuries."
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209
|
posted 25 February 2006 05:52 PM
The really sad fact is that neither the Paul Martin plan or the Harper plan will actually create new day care spots to reduce the waiting lists. What is needed is multi-year funding for both infrastructure and programatic to ensure that new spaces are created and then that the organizations that run the facilities have the funds to continue to operate. Neither Martin or Harper think long-term. 1 year of funding does nothing if no new spaces are created. $1200 in the pockets of the parents does nothing if there are no day care spaces for the parent to use the money towards. We need money for capital and infrastructure NOW!!!! to build upwards of 35,000 new day care spaces. We need money to ensure long-term success of the facilities that manage the new spaces NOW!!! We do not need either the Liberals or the Cons trying to play with numbers and figures but do nothing to change the situation that parents face today and tomorrow. Build the new day care spaces. Fund the programs that run the spaces. Make it easier for parents
From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 February 2006 07:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by miles: The really sad fact is that neither the Paul Martin plan or the Harper plan will actually create new day care spots to reduce the waiting lists. What is needed is multi-year funding for both infrastructure and programatic to ensure that new spaces are created and then that the organizations that run the facilities have the funds to continue to operate. Neither Martin or Harper think long-term. 1 year of funding does nothing if no new spaces are created.
But I thought that the Liberal plan was a five-year plan, yes/no? Is that not what Harper is cancelling? He is proposing to pay for the first year, so that the provinces can, in Finley's ugly expression, "transition," but then he's junking the long-term agreements?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664
|
posted 26 February 2006 08:30 AM
If you think about the welfare mom with two kids you will realize that getting a cash benefit would be better than having the money go as a supplement to the daycare. She would never see the money. Most would be absorbed by profit and administrative overhead.To get her kids into daycare would be problematical unless some method of allowing her to work, get wages and still be supplemented by social assistance is provided for. I really abhor these "chicken little" Liberal laments. The Conservative plan wil give cash to needy parents. A welfare mom with two kids getting a thousand a month on the dole will immediately see a 20% increase in her income.The Liberal plan would give her nothing. The NDP's plan is infinitely better - a completely public system of daycare linked to the education system. This way the FEDs could work jointly with the provinces to build new schools and daycare centres as common facilities. Parents with a number of kids would have "one-stop- shopping" for pre-schoolers and school-aged kids.It is already being done on an ad-hoc basis. Some facilities in Toronto (and elsewhere) also include community centres in these joint facilities.This is be a way to improve the public infrastructure at reduced cost.It is also a way to implement national education standards by the use of conditional federal funding. However, the NDP did not win the election so this will not be the plan the Conservative implement. Therefore the NDP should lobby to improve the Conservative plan on its own terms - that is, make it more lucrative. We should ask Harper & Co to double or triple the amount to begin with. This government will never fall on this issue. It is a Conservative Bread & Butter issue. They have brought back a time-honoured social traditional institution - the "baby bonus". [ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ] [ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]
From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 26 February 2006 10:28 AM
It is so heart breakingly short sighted to think in terms of "money" and one year band aid solutions to what is obviously a growing problem across the country. Yes, in the short sighted term this money will be a boost in income for the welfare mom...and then what? Even a quick and incomplete look at the problems of youth alienation, violence, school drop-out, unemployment, and crime should show that if we don't get our heads out of our butts it's going to cost much much more to deal with the problems we are making for ourselves. Of course Harpo and his bunch don't really care, there are industries built around prison systems and there's always the military and someone else's nation to invade and ... but no one year or five year or even ten year on-the-cheap band aid is going to really "solve" anything at all except political hubris. We have to face the cold truth. They do not care about anybody's children. Their own are fine, thank you. Theirs will have nannies and private schools and shrinks if needed. YOUR kids can rot.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554
|
posted 26 February 2006 10:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by anne cameron: We have to face the cold truth. They do not care about anybody's children. Their own are fine, thank you. Theirs will have nannies and private schools and shrinks if needed. YOUR kids can rot.
I agree but add the liberals to this as well. If either the federal liberals or the cons cared abotu day care, child poverty, elder care then action would have taken place. Neither party builds or built affordable housing, neither worked with community organizations that provide services to see what is needed on the ground and what to do. Neither party cares. Both the cons and the libs make photo op announcements hoping that a picture will solve the problem. we need day care spots today. we need affordable housing today, we need better services for the elderly, disabled and those living below the poverty line. No our federal governments since at least 1990 only do photo ops not work
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260
|
posted 26 February 2006 12:04 PM
quote: If you think about the welfare mom with two kids you will realize that getting a cash benefit would be better than having the money go as a supplement to the daycare. She would never see the money. Most would be absorbed by profit and administrative overhead.
But what if aforementioned welfare mom doesn't want to be on welfare forever? If she gets a job, how does she pay for childcare on $100/month?Surely childcare is about both the emancipation of women and helping families. To paraphrase what a previous poster said, social services aren't about the rich. The wealthy have the same lifestyle wherever they live in the world. They preen over dismantling the "nanny state," and they are the only ones who can afford nannies. Arctic Pig and I couldn't afford childcare. A space in our local daycare is $500/month, and that's subsidized, so we juggled our work schedules to look after our little ones ourselves until they were in school. But we are both in a work situation where that's possible. Like most families in Canada, we didn't, to quote the Conservative mantra, have a "choice in childcare." We did what we had to, and an extra $1200 a year would pay for a babysitter no more than a couple of evenings a month. And Anne Cameron, you are a brilliant grandma.
From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 February 2006 12:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by johnpauljones: If either the federal liberals or the cons cared abotu day care, child poverty, elder care then action would have taken place.
I agree. But what about the NDP -- federally or provincially? Do they care? I don't mean in their hearts -- I mean in their actions? Québec legislated affordable, $5 per day universal child care. Did you know that? And it was done by the Parti québécois, over the loud protests of the business class. They did not wait for a national program. It wasn't perfect, but it was a huge step forward. Unfortunately, the current "federalist" government of Jean Charest is trying to undermine it, but the people will yet have their say. Will the NDP pledge to do all in its power to defeat the Conservative government if it proceeds with its $1200 carnival scam? That, to me, is what it means to say that you "care".
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664
|
posted 26 February 2006 07:03 PM
quote: Of course Harpo and his bunch don't really care, there are industries built around prison systems and there's always the military and someone else's nation to invade and ... but no one year or five year or even ten year on-the-cheap band aid is going to really "solve" anything at all except political hubris.
- Anne Cameron How do you know Conservatives care less than anybody else? You can't say that without proof of some kind. Look at the pragmnatics of it. Harper tried to win the first time as the strident Bushite and lost. This time he got a mmoderated plan that includes a concrete benefit for every mother with children. It is politically savy. Are they going to scrap this idea next time we have an election? I don't think so. They will simply increase the amount to deflect Liberal criticism. The NDP has been critical of the Liberal agenda and has been labelled as being "too negative". Now they have a different target. What will the Liberal media say about these criticism while they are still smarting from their well deserved drubbing? The welfare mom deserves the cash and more. So if she can't get off welfare becsuse of ineffective and punuitive social policy well, who's fault is that? For my money I see Harper somewhat differently. He is undergoing a transformation and so are the Conservatives. They are realizing that they are not really the unabashed right wing zealots that they are cast as. If democracy in Canada works, and I can believe what the polls tell us about Canadian values, Conservatives can't survive in our climate as self-styled "Republicans". They have to moderate their agenda to gain power. The question then is how do they do it? Once we on the left understand what their approach is then Jack Layton, who is a brilliant politician, will be able to use parliament to more effectively promote the things we are interested in. There are limits to buying people's support of course but Harper is a father with young children. Are we to assume he has no compassion for the poor and dispossessed? I don't think that take on Conservatives is a rational approacgh to working in a minority government.
From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 February 2006 07:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Was that Rene Levesque who implemented 5$ dollar daycare, unionist ?.
No, it was under Lucien Bouchard, in the late 1990s. It was accompanied by a significant increase in spaces. And in 2003, the Charest govt. jacked it up from $5 to $7 per day. Here's one short reference: "The 1997 Quebec Family policy announced that day care services would become universally available for a minimal fee of five dollars per day per child. This innovative program stimulated an increase of day care spaces from 78,000 in 1998 to 145,000 in 2002. Early childhood day care centres employ 22,000 people. This makes it the third most important employer in Québec, outside of the public sector (Vaillancourt, Aubrey, jetté and Tremblay, 2002)."
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219
|
posted 27 February 2006 09:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
No, it was under Lucien Bouchard, in the late 1990s. It was accompanied by a significant increase in spaces. And in 2003, the Charest govt. jacked it up from $5 to $7 per day. Here's one short reference: "The 1997 Quebec Family policy announced that day care services would become universally available for a minimal fee of five dollars per day per child. This innovative program stimulated an increase of day care spaces from 78,000 in 1998 to 145,000 in 2002. Early childhood day care centres employ 22,000 people. This makes it the third most important employer in Québec, outside of the public sector (Vaillancourt, Aubrey, jetté and Tremblay, 2002)."
I lived in Quebec for a year - mostly because I was a single parent and couldn't afford daycare or rent in Ontario. Over the years we've gone through at least 5 different daycares. Looking back; in terms of quality/committment of staff, infrastructure, programming etc the Quebec daycare was the winner. AND it only cost $7 a day!!!! Why the Quebec model can't be applied to the whole of Canada is beyond me.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 27 February 2006 01:35 PM
[email protected] What do you want to see on the site? Do you have a testimonial about day care? Know someone who does? Have a picture of a politician pinching cheeks? Planting a vote-getting smek on a wee one? Send stories, suggestions and photos to kissthebaby! Want to be involved in setting up this site? In organizing actions? kissthebaby needs you. Come on, kissthebaby already.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 27 February 2006 06:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Boinker: If you think about the welfare mom with two kids you will realize that getting a cash benefit would be better than having the money go as a supplement to the daycare. She would never see the money. Most would be absorbed by profit and administrative overhead. [ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]
[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]
If BC is any example, they would immediately claw back the benefit - i.e. reduce welfare benefits by a corresponding amount. If you are a single parent on welfare, you are basically fucked, unless you can get family support for childcare. If you can't, you are fucked, period.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664
|
posted 27 February 2006 06:56 PM
quote: If BC is any example, they would immediately claw back the benefit - i.e. reduce welfare benefits by a corresponding amount. If you are a single parent on welfare, you are basically fucked, unless you can get family support for childcare. If you can't, you are fucked, period.
This is a valid critique if it is true. So the point is why pretend that Canadians will vote out Conservatives to re-elect a bunch of welching Liberals? The Liberal plan is toast. We have to work withion a parliamentary democracy to make the Conservative plan better. We may not like it. We may have a better idea and a better plan but we don't (on the left) have the political mandate for it yet. In Ontario you used to be able to earn 20% of your EI benefit before it was deducted from your cheque. This encourgaged people to work part time and helped them stay focused. We should now be able to see that being tough on the poor does nothing for the bottom line of fiscal prudence or make for good social policy. Getting people working creates tax revenue.
From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|