Majority of Canadians feeling politically homeless

[The Green Barbarian]

However, for those who DO want children but feel they can’t afford to have any, .

It shouldn't be about "feelings", it should be about commitment. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you put your mind to it. And your will. And you don't expect government hand-outs to accomplish those goals. I just can't agree with your "nanny-state should supply everything" mentality here. If people "feel" that they can't afford a kid or two, then they should do a gut check and really examine what their priorities are in life.

[Merry]

However, for those who DO want children but feel they can’t afford to have any, .

It shouldn't be about "feelings", it should be about commitment. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you put your mind to it. And your will. And you don't expect government hand-outs to accomplish those goals. I just can't agree with your "nanny-state should supply everything" mentality here. If people "feel" that they can't afford a kid or two, then they should do a gut check and really examine what their priorities are in life.

I never said the State should provide everything. What I said was it’s in the State’s best interest to help those who want to have children afford to do so. And ensuring that families have access to affordable childcare is one way the State can help.

[Staredintoabyss]

Simple reality: no kids no state.

Immigration is at best a sort of first aid to such issues and comes with its own emergent complexities.
Being a viable place to raise children is the core lifeline of a state long term.

[The Green Barbarian]

I never said the State should provide everything. What I said was it’s in the State’s best interest to help those who want to have children afford to do so. And ensuring that families have access to affordable childcare is one way the State can help.

Here's what you said, that I was replying to:

However, for those who DO want children but feel they can’t afford to have any,

That's a bit different than saying that it's in the state's best interests to help those who want to have kids "afford" to do so. There is a big difference between what people can afford, and what they "feel" that they can afford. As I said, it's about priorities, and about living within your means. If you "feel" that you can't have kids unless you can feed them all high-end vegan food and you can go on three Disney cruises a year, and that "the State" should be paying for this kind of thing, then maybe you aren't setting your priorities very straight, and just making excuses for why you don't want kids. If you really want kids, then it's got nothing to do with the state helping out, it's about a commitment to ensuring that you can handle the responsibility. The State handing out big Canada Child Benefits to buy your vote is nice, but ultimately, it's up to you to figure it out as a parent.

[rustled]

"Politically homeless" or otherwise, even if we could agree on a definition of "affordable child care", and even if we can agree on which parents "need" it and which parents simply "want" it, the simple truth is that there is no way for any party - or any government - to ensure every parent who needs affordable childcare has access to affordable childcare. There are too many variables - small communities, shift work, part time work, etc. - and too few people who want to do the work.

"Affordable daycare" is a feel-good campaign promise, the support of which entrenches the societal expectation that Canadian parents really ought to be in the work force while their children are young, while building support for the misguided notion that our governments really ought to provide institutions where even our youngest children spend their time with adults who are not their parents.

Although I have felt "politically homeless" since midway through Trudeau's term as leader of the Liberal party, suggesting parents should be working would never be a way to convince me to feel at home in any party making that suggestion. I certainly understand why these promises are being made during elections, and the popular appeal of these promises is, IMO, a terrible condemnation of our priorities as a society. I'd prefer parties are honest. The honest truth is that parents should be thinking long and hard about their child care needs, and they should be completely realistic about the lack of interest from others in doing the work of caring for their children so they can return to whatever work they have chosen to do - work that very seldom involves providing child care for other people's very young children. Politicians making promises they can't keep isn't helpful to anyone.

[fluffy]

"Affordable daycare" is a feel-good campaign promise, the support of which entrenches the societal expectation that Canadian parents really ought to be in the work force while their children are young, while building support for the misguided notion that our governments really ought to provide institutions where even our youngest children spend their time with adults who are not their parents.

Is it a "societal expectation" or a financial reality for families forced to have two incomes to pay the bills ?

[The Green Barbarian]

Is it a "societal expectation" or a financial reality for families forced to have two incomes to pay the bills ?

Once again, is this "forced" or is this just the result of decisions made? For example, I knew a couple that were "forced" to both be working, because they had a kid in gymnastics and a kid in hockey. Both kids were of an age where they didn't even need daycare anymore. Both adults could be working, even if their kids weren't in sports, but one of them didn't really want to work anymore, and so was just staying home. Suddenly, with the increased costs of the sports activities, she was "forced" to go back to work to pay for it. Should the government be upping the largesse to pay for these choices instead? Is that what some here are saying? I am curious, as to how couples could be "forced" to do anything.

How about instead of upping the dough being paid out, we cut some taxes instead?? Starting with the idiot carbon tax. Instead of opening up the spending taps, let's chop the tax taps. Then everyone wins.

[rustled]

"Affordable daycare" is a feel-good campaign promise, the support of which entrenches the societal expectation that Canadian parents really ought to be in the work force while their children are young, while building support for the misguided notion that our governments really ought to provide institutions where even our youngest children spend their time with adults who are not their parents.

Is it a "societal expectation" or a financial reality for families forced to have two incomes to pay the bills ?

Support of that promise entrenches the societal expectation.

I was quite clear in what I said - it's not an "either or" and the attempt to turn it into an argument over that is rather pointless.

If you want to argue about families' financial realities, fill yer boots.

[fluffy]

Is it a "societal expectation" or a financial reality for families forced to have two incomes to pay the bills ?

The societal expectation.

Perhaps there are some people seeking government help who don't really need it, but is that reason enough to deny help to those in legitimate need ? The necessity of two incomes is financial reality for many.

[rustled]

Is it a "societal expectation" or a financial reality for families forced to have two incomes to pay the bills ?

The societal expectation.

Perhaps there are some people seeking government help who don't really need it, but is that reason enough to deny help to those in legitimate need ? The necessity of two incomes is financial reality for many.

If anyone was suggesting "deny help to those in legitimate need", it wasn't me.

Go ahead and make your case for "the necessity of two incomes is financial reality for many" - I won't stop you. Spell out what it looks like: the family with legitimate need.

Is it the same definition for parents in every community and every rural area in the country? That's only the beginning.

What no one here can do is explain HOW any party can deliver on the promise of affordable daycare for all of the parents who need it - even if Canadians can agree on "affordable" and "need". It's an empty promise, raising the expectations of people who think they can count on the government to make sure there's a childcare apace available for them when they are ready to return to work.

[fluffy]

Here's a workable framework:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/fami ... t/how-much

[rustled]

Here's a workable framework:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/fami ... t/how-much

Your "workable framework" explains how the BC government calculates the money available through their program. It does NOT explain how daycare spaces will appear in communities where there are none available, or for parents who work shift work, etc.

[erinmore3775]

fluffy has outlined perhaps the best parent/childcare model available in Canada at this moment. It offers good support for working middle class families. Politicians and their parties must realize that affordable child care and pharmacare are essential planks in their platforms for the next election. This election will be won or lost in the major population centres (lower mainland of BC, southern Ontario, the St Lawrence corridor of Quebec). These are the areas with the highest middle-class population of families aged under 50 years. These are also the highest cost of living centres in Canada and necessitate two person incomes.

It is also important to note that voters in these areas also value policies that support strong environmental/green policies. In order to win over the "politically homeless" parties must embrace these principles in their platforms if they wan to win a majority.

[rustled]

fluffy has outlined perhaps the best parent/childcare model available in Canada at this moment. It offers good support for working middle class families. Politicians and their parties must realize that affordable child care and pharmacare are essential planks in their platforms for the next election. This election will be won or lost in the major population centres (lower mainland of BC, southern Ontario, the St Lawrence corridor of Quebec). These are the areas with the highest middle-class population of families aged under 50 years. These are also the highest cost of living centres in Canada and necessitate two person incomes.

Again: promising affordable child care WITHOUT explaining HOW the party will convince more people to WORK AS CHILD CARE WORKERS is pointless. It creates false expectations. Ask the many parents who cannot find a space in their community for their child.

erinmore3775, I invite you to explain how any politician, any party, any government WILL be able to ensure that every parent in every Canadian community who has the money to pay for child care can know there WILL be a daycare space available for their child.

[The Green Barbarian]

In order to win over the "politically homeless" parties must embrace these principles in their platforms if they wan to win a majority.

This is probably the dumbest possible political advice I have seen since the Obama era. Well done sir.