Talk

Advanced search

Gordon Brown wants free nurseries for 2yo. GRRRR

(102 Posts)
purits Sun 21-Sep-08 09:36:55

When my DC were young, there was none of this state provision of pre-school places. I had to pay for my DC's childcare. When I realised that private schools cost about the same nurseries (at this age), we went to private school because, again, state schools did not then provide the after-school clubs and wraparound care that they do today.

If my DC were a bit older, they would have had free University tuition but now they will have to pay.

I do not begrudge today's parents their free state provision but our generation seem to have been stuffed at both ends of their educational life. We have had the double whammy of having to pay for what others have had for free and also paying for those same others through my taxes. Not fair!sad

WouldYouCouldYouWithAGoat Sun 21-Sep-08 09:39:12

jesus wept. get over it.

nailpolish Sun 21-Sep-08 09:41:52

your children will benefit from this if they every have children of their own

or do you want them to go through the 'hardship' you did

yu sound like my old bitter and twisted dad

ScummyMummy Sun 21-Sep-08 09:42:23

What self-absorbed twaddle.

Maiakins Sun 21-Sep-08 10:45:05

But is it right for the government to be spending so much money on encouraging 2 year olds into an institutional environment, when the bulk of the research suggests that nurseries are not the best environment for under 3 yr olds? I don't instinctively agree personally.

And most preschools/nurseries would say that the state funding isn't enough for under 3yrs to provide a good enough quality of care and the rules prevent them charging top-up fees.

Umlellala Sun 21-Sep-08 10:49:04

Oh my - what a weird attitude! I assumed the grrrr was because you thought the government should be supporting parents who wanted to stay home with their children, rather than pushing them back to work and paying for someone else to do it hmm...

ElfOnTheTopShelf Sun 21-Sep-08 11:06:32

I would hope that this would be expanded to help towards childminders etc rather than just nurseries.

I thought this was old news anyway?

DrHorrible Sun 21-Sep-08 11:07:25

hmm

Beetroot Sun 21-Sep-08 11:08:26

I makes me mad - playgroups (when my kids were young) cost £5 per session. and it was fun and play

Put the money where it is needed most in the education system.

Unders 4's just need to play

lulumama Sun 21-Sep-08 11:11:20

government funded pre school for the 3s and over is 2.5 hours a day. which is hardly a great help if you work full time... you would then need a CM or family member to pick the child up, take the home or to a nursery or back to their home for care.

2.5 hours a day is not a free ride really, is it?

you do begrudge it despite saying you don;t, or why be grrr about it!!

i paid £7 a session last year for my 2 year old to have 3.5 hours of care... again, hardly a help if you work full time

DrHorrible Sun 21-Sep-08 11:12:03

The free nursery thing I can see pros and cons (pros being DS is exhausting me and the sooner he can go for a few hours the better blush), the OP however isn't bothered about the ethics behind it it seems, she is feeling all upset that she hasn't benefited from any change in schemes hmm

SqueakyPop Sun 21-Sep-08 11:12:45

It's a stupid bit of politicking.

2.5-3hrs of free chilcare a day will not enable many mums to go out to work.

RustyBear Sun 21-Sep-08 11:12:49

I think you're being a bit hard on purits - she has said she doesn't begrudge it to today's parents, so why can't she come on here & whinge about it, with out being called 'weird' 'bitter & twisted' or self-absorbed.

RustyBear Sun 21-Sep-08 11:15:07

Though actually GB has said it may take 10 years to implement (which probably means 15), so it's not really today's parents that will benefit....

DrHorrible Sun 21-Sep-08 11:17:35

If she doesn't begrudge them, why is she saying it isn't fair?

I'd rather it was an honest foot stamping OP than trying to pretend otherwise.

Chandra Sun 21-Sep-08 11:19:19

"I do not begrudge today's parents their free state provision but our generation seem to have been stuffed at both ends of their educational life. We have had the double whammy of having to pay for what others have had for free and also paying for those same others through my taxes. Not fair! "

It doesn't seem to me that the OP is complaining about other parents having these extra benefits, but about the bad timing which excluded her and her children from some.

However, perhaps the pressure of mothers as her who had to cope without the freebies is what brought this measures in.

Chandra Sun 21-Sep-08 11:20:53

To say it isn't fair, doesn't necessarily mean that she is against the other parents but perhaps only against her own circumstances.

DrHorrible Sun 21-Sep-08 11:21:37

I am just in a stroppy mood. I can't see the point in mentioning other parents at all

DrHorrible Sun 21-Sep-08 11:23:07

Kind of like some new fancy changes so that dyslexics get £10,000 when they turn 18. I would come on pissed off that DH didn't get his money when HE turned 18, but wouldn't bother to mention the current 18 year olds.

Grr. I think I'll just go hit stuff instead of MN, I'm clearly in the wrong mood

jellybeans Sun 21-Sep-08 11:25:12

'But is it right for the government to be spending so much money on encouraging 2 year olds into an institutional environment, when the bulk of the research suggests that nurseries are not the best environment for under 3 yr olds?' Excellent point. I feel the same. It's just a cynical ploy to make it 'normal' for all children to be in state care (it will be from birth eventually probably) and for mums to be 'encouraged' to work (probably on top of the unpaid work they alreay do he lions share of). Education starts soon enough, SAHMs may not need childcare so it doesn't benefit them, why not give parents an allowance to choose to SAH or use childcare, why just subsidies some. I'll tell you why cos this nanny state don't want us to have a choice, nanny socialism all the way. My child won't be going until about 3 and then for a couple hours, that is enough.

clam Sun 21-Sep-08 11:41:20

But I don't think it's being billed as childcare (for working mothers) but as pre-school play/education. Twoh hours a day nursery provision is next to useless for any parent who wants a job.
Still a gimmick, however, I think.

LazyLinePainterJane Sun 21-Sep-08 11:41:54

Regardless of how crap the idea is, it is rather sad and pathetic to get annoyed at it because you didn't get it, no?

cali Sun 21-Sep-08 11:42:52

Why can't children just be allowed to be children, what is the urgency with them starting formal "education" at 2 years.

They are still babies FFS.

I do know that at this age, the emphasis is on having fun and interacting with other children but I feel the money that this scheme will cost, would be far better spent improving the standard of schools and education for children who are already in the education system.

beanieb Sun 21-Sep-08 11:45:30

"But is it right for the government to be spending so much money on encouraging 2 year olds into an institutional environment, when the bulk of the research suggests that nurseries are not the best environment for under 3 yr olds?"

Mine will be in a creche at 1. Does that make me a bad parent. Woops!

purits Sun 21-Sep-08 11:48:48

Thank you Rusty and Chandra. I'm glad that someone bothered to read my post properly and understands what I was trying to say!smile Like I say, I don't mind the next generation getting stuff that my kids didn't (we have all benefitted from something that: I certainly have work-wise) but it's annoying when it is coupled with them not getting stuff that the previous generation did.

"It's just a cynical ploy to make it 'normal' for all children to be in state care (it will be from birth eventually probably)"
Agreed, JB. Scary ain't it!?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now