Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Gordon Brown wants free nurseries for 2yo. GRRRR

101 replies

purits · 21/09/2008 09:36

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!

OP posts:
findtheriver · 21/09/2008 12:01

Of course you're not bad parents because you work!!

And yeah, 2.5 hour sessions are not going to help in terms of covering work hours anyway

ivykaty44 · 21/09/2008 12:05

Why not give the billion £ that this will cost each year - to the parent of the child to stay at home and be with their own child? That would be novel idea for a parent to be at home with their won child now.

It seems MP's are only interested in children being taken care of outside of their own home and MP's dont trust parents to actually care for their own children.

Is it a way of creating jobs? Or am I just being far to cynical this afternoon?

compo · 21/09/2008 12:06

I think it sounds great tbh

foxinsocks · 21/09/2008 12:06

err no-one's being forced to do anything

and if they happen to be in full time nursery at that age, then it just means you pay less (which is what happened when the free 3 year old places came in) or if they are with a nanny, they can go to a preschool for a few free sessions or whatever

no-one is putting a gun to your head and saying send them off. Ridiculous.

foxinsocks · 21/09/2008 12:07

no, funnily enough, some people have to work to keep a roof over their heads!

cornsilk · 21/09/2008 12:10

I get what you mean purits. We also missed out on free childcare, extended maternity leave, I wasn't even allowed to job share - wouldn't have been an issue now. Twas hard. It's not that I begrudge today's new parents at all, just wish we'd had the perks as well.

expatinscotland · 21/09/2008 12:11

and how does he propose to pay for this?

haahaahaahaa.

let me guess . . .

GB could heat this deathly cold house to boiling in 5 minutes with all the hot air he spraffs.

cali · 21/09/2008 12:14

my nursery don't have any funded places but dd1 goes to playgroup 4 sessions per week that are funded.

I know no one is being forced into sending their children to nursery and that legally you can keep your child at home with you until they are 5/6 years old, well at least you used to be able to.

My point was, once formal education is offered from a certain age, there can be expectations that your child will attend nursery, playgroup etc. Many parents will feel that they have to send their dc's to nursery, what is ridiculous about that?

jellybeans · 21/09/2008 14:57

'But I don't think it's being billed as childcare (for working mothers) but as pre-school play/education.' Children don't need socialisation until about 2 and a half, before that it is often parallel play. Also, it is only a matter of time till SAHP are expected to meet all these silly early years targets, after all kids in childcare have to.

'once formal education is offered from a certain age, there can be expectations that your child will attend nursery, playgroup etc. Many parents will feel that they have to send their dc's to nursery.' I totally agree with this. It will be billed as optional at first but soon be seen as the norm, ATEOTD Brown (and his cronies) is obsessed with getting kids into state care and mothers into work. Were his kids in state nurseries? Would be interesting to know.

I don't think WOHMs or childcare per se are bad, my eldest DD was in nursery f/t, SAH just didn't occur to me at that time. I disagree with the constant push to get all kids in nurseries (and not childminders who i think the Gov don't like, but institutions). Giving a token sum to all parents for them to choose is the only fair way. Education does not need to start at 2. For WMs kids need a safe place to play and be cared for not a stupid nappy curriculum.

trefusis · 21/09/2008 15:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

KatyMac · 21/09/2008 15:12

Elfonthetpshelf Childminders can be accredited so they can take it - but it involves lots of jumping through hoops on our part

TinkerBellesMum · 21/09/2008 15:17

I don't think he needs to worry where the money will come from, just needs to sound good. If he's saying 10 years he will not be PM even if Labour are still in government. He's just making work for someone else that they'll probably just shelve anyway.

Reallytired · 21/09/2008 19:19

I think a lot of children benefit from a playgroup/nursery before the age of 3. Certainly their parents often do.

The governent wants to get single mums off benefits and into work. It is unreasonable to expect a single mum to go to work unless there is affordable childcare.

IAteDavinaForDinner · 21/09/2008 19:27

I know how you feel purits, as someone who has found themselves in a bit of a loophole with regard to Scottish student funding I've lost out in comparison to those who came before and went after me. Tough luck, really.

However, I too expected you to be ranting about the government's obsession with shoehorning tiny wee ones into childcare so that parents can be 'encouraged' back to work pronto. Kids should be spending their early years playing and it should, IMO, be made possible for them to do this while under the care of a parent. It's my opinion that kids shouldn't be pushed into structured learning as early as they are in this country.

As far as your OP goes, all I can say is that life isn't fair.

TheBlonde · 21/09/2008 19:29

I would prefer them to do something about the funding gap for the 3 year olds

Reallytired · 21/09/2008 19:43

I think that funding for three year olds is fine. It pays for a pre school in our area with no problem.

15 hours a week is pre school education.

50 hours a week is daycare and its unreasonable for the tax payer to pay this amount.

Its reasonable to expect working parents to top up to pay for the extra hours and have working childcare tax credits for those who would struggle to pay the cost of childcare.

TheBlonde · 21/09/2008 21:10

Here the funding covers less than half the cost of preschool

jellybeans · 21/09/2008 21:11

'It is unreasonable to expect a single mum to go to work unless there is affordable childcare.' I think it is unreasonable to expect them to go to work when they already have a job (ie parenting a baby) if they want o care for their own child. Seems daft to give them money to pay someone to look after their child while they are willing to do it themselves.

ScummyMummy · 21/09/2008 21:47

It was the whining about having no choice other than to send the kids to private school because of the wraparound care that made me feel ah diddums like, frankly. It's choice (because you had money) that came to your rescue, ffs. And the sobbing about having to pay for the lucky new generation through taxes was less than endearing also. I'm afraid your OP just didn't succeed at all in painting a picture of your family as one short changed by society. Quite the reverse. Which is grand.

Original poster
purits · 22/09/2008 08:37

That's the second unpleasant posting from you Scummy. What is your problem? Why do you have such a chip on your shoulder? Yes I had the luxury of choice of paying childcare fees to enable me to work but why do you think that was?

I chose to work hard at school and Uni and pass my exams. I chose a career that suited me. On the one hand, I was lucky that it was well-paid because it was male-dominated but, on the other hand, I had to fight many feminist battles. To be taken seriously, I chose to establish myself in my career before having babies which meant that I was over 30 before I had my first pregnancy, practically unheard of in those days. To maintain my position on the career ladder, I chose to go back to work but we didn't have the luxury of 12 month maternity leave, job sharing, flexible working, carers leave or workplace crèches - I had to make my own watertight arrangements (hence nursery and school). In the end, I chose to set up in business on my own as that was the only way to get child-friendly hours. I chose a good man for a husband so we have a decent life. So all those choices meant that I could afford to choose private school at nursery age.

So what do I hear from Scummy? Does she say well done, it's your generation that have helped the next wave of women to be accepted as equals in the workplace; that have introduced unimagined maternity rights; that have made it possible for women to choose their role (SAHM or WOHM) and not have society impose it on them; that have made the medical profession realise that women can have babies in their 30s and 40s. Or does she merely make green-eyed catty comments?

Why do you think that, just because I have worked myself into a fortunate position, I am not allowed to express an opinion. HOW DARE YOU!

OP posts:
mumfor1standmaybe2ndtime · 22/09/2008 08:41

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

I depend on ds being at his funded playschool sessions for 2x 2.5hrs a week to go to work! Dh drops him at 9am whilst I start work at 7am. I collect ds at 11.45, without this it would be awkward to do my job.

fishie · 22/09/2008 08:52

i do find it very irritating that it only applies to nurseries and not childminders. as katymac says they can qualify, but not easily. surely ofsted requirements are sufficient for this.

even more annoyingly my local nursery saves most of the morning places for full timers so they can make more money. this means all the 3yos are only offered afternoons, if anything at all.

AtheneNoctua · 22/09/2008 09:13

From Expat: "GB could heat this deathly cold house to boiling in 5 minutes with all the hot air he spraffs."

I think it's a daft idea. 2 year old don't need to be in formal education. But some of the older kids, who do need to be in formal education, could make much better use of the money GB is going to give to 2 year olds.

I think education is really important, but at age 2, I do not believe the state curriculum is better than hanging out with mum/carer and going to playgroups or whatever else they choose to do with their time.

It will cost a lot of money, and it will do very little to help working parents. 12.5 hours per week is more trouble to organise getting the chil there and back than it is helpful.

jellybeans · 22/09/2008 09:32

I think GB wants to make it socially unacceptable for mums/dads to SAH with their babies. He is looking to Nordic countries apparently where it is seen as unusual to SAH. He doesn't care what mothers want or what is best for babies, only about socialism and the economy. He would be happy to have babies in care from birth I think and parents just popping in at weekends. That is how much this nanny state scares me. It should be about choice, not dictatorship. The country cannot afford the measures anyway, the money is better spent elsewhere.

expatinscotland · 22/09/2008 09:34

'He doesn't care what mothers want or what is best for babies, only about socialism '

If GB cares about socialism he's got a damn funny way of showing it.