Nursery and childcare

Everything is provided at my baby DGS nursery - formula, nappies, freshly cooked lunch - but as it's part of a private school which the babies will go on to attend, starting with pre-prep at 3, I don't suppose the nursery will be participating in this 'free' childcare programme. I was just thinking that as all that is included in the extortionately expensive fees (they are also open 50 weeks per year, only closed at Christmas), that it's quite likely that other more 'normal' nurseries also included these items in the fees until this 'free' childcare nonsense came along.

The pre school my DGSs have been to provides a morning snack but the children took their own packed lunches if they were staying all day. The children took their own nappies if they needed to, plus a change of clothes "in case"

I don't think SAHMs are a new thing - rather the reverse - it has become a luxury to be able to afford to stay at home. Hardly any of dd's friends with young children stay at home - they're mostly back at work after maternity leave - they don't have any choice if the mortgage is going to be paid.

By contrast, very few of my friends' mothers worked when I was very young. I was one of four, and my mother didn't go back to work until I was 14 - by which time she thought my younger siblings were safe to be left after school. I'm sure she'd have liked to go back to work sooner - my folks were permanently broke - but we had no family near and there just wouldn't have been any childcare available.

I often think of the difference between then and now. OK, money was always very short - we never had things like orange squash or biscuits except at birthday parties, and virtually all my clothes were hand me downs, but my folks were (just) able to buy a 4 bed house in what is now a pretty expensive London-commute area, on just one, very ordinary salary.
Nowadays that would barely even get you a small flat, no matter how broke you were prepared to be.

My parents were born in the early 1920's. Both their mothers were back at work between babies. I suspect other industrialised areas were the same, women worked in the mills around here, money was tight and the work inconsistent. It feels very similar at our local supermarket, zero hours contracts and women back soon after having their babies.
I agree with MawBroon and others who don't take a judgemental view of those whose children go to day care/nursery. I wish this country would follow the lead set by other Northern European/Scandi countries in ensuring all children are involved in high quality early years provision, either provided or subsidised effectively by the state. The research is clear. Those countries have less problems with addiction and anti social behaviour.
As for the occasional derogatory comments above about parents who take advantage of the 30 hours child care to shop at Primark or go to McD's for breakfast - what about the benefits to their children? The austerity approach has resulted in preventive and supportive services for children and families being devastated. If the 30 hours enables some struggling families to enable the parents to have a break and the children to receive much needed security, stability and stimulation, how can that be anything other than a good thing.
The sad thing is that the Family Centres which offered nursery or day care provision are closing at an alarming rate. Those centres wouldn't just have provided day care, they'd have engaged with parents, helping with debts/depression/domestic stuff/routines/cooking etc etc.
Are the future generation not the responsibility of all of us? I believe so.

According to dd, whose elder will soon qualify for the free hours, it only applies to those who are working a certain number of hours.
As she so elegantly put it, 'They are not paying it to anyone just to sit on their arse watching Jeremy Kyle.'

Quite Witzend. I think the comment made by someone further up the thread, regarding the mums who use these hours to go to McD's for breakfast, or hit Primark is terrible. Let's just stereotype here, and decide that anyone who is not working is lazy. I am sure there are some, but also a great many who cant afford to work precisely because of the price of childcare in the UK.

Beau free childcare "nonsense" so families who are already struggling shouldn't get help with childcare? Of course its great your family can afford both private nursery at exhorbitant fees AND private school but sadly most people in this country dont have that advantage.Surely we should ALL want whats best for ALL children and not just those whose families can afford expensive education .You never know when bad luck will appear and those at private nursery today may well be taken out tomorrow because jobs are diappearing

paddyann, I meant that nothing in life is 'free' - someone is paying for it. Nick Clegg's 'free' school meals would also fall into that category. I personally just wish all mums could stay at home but I know that's seen as very old fashioned now.

I wish all mothers had the choice about whether to have some time away from working outside the home. I wish high quality subsidised child care was available to all parents. I wish employers were able and willing to support employees who are parents. When my 2 year old grandson spent 5 days in hospital because of illness recently, his mother was given 1 day 'compassionate leave'. The rest was unpaid.

there are free school meals in Scotland for all children in primary 1 ,2 and 3 and I applaud the Scottish government for it.Surely the education of the next generation AND their wellbeing is the most important thing we can do.

Sorry, no I don't believe that people who can't afford to feed their children should be encouraged to have more by supplying non-means tested 'free' school meals. Anyway, that's off topic - my original point was that in this area (Wirral) those items appear to be included in the costs of the nurseries so it may be the norm in some areas and not others.

no I don't believe that people who can't afford to feed their children should be encouraged to have more

That is such a worrying statement!

Sorry, no I don't believe that people who can't afford to feed their children should be encouraged to have more.

Beau I'm not aware of anyone in this country being encouraged to have more children. I suspect that what you really mean is that you believe some people should be actively discouraged.

Isn't that the thin edge of the wedge?

Sorry, I am definitely not a leftie like almost everyone on here so no, I don't believe in any socialist ideas such as free childcare or free school meals.

I am a bit - is what you are saying that people may have more children just because they will get free schools meals?
I could have misread the post.

My D has just had her first child & I'm mortified that she’ll go to nursery at such a young age but she is the higher earner. Her partner is in a niche job whereby if he left he’d struggle to find another. They don’t have new cars, or debts, or drink or smoke yet couldn’t afford to pay the mortgage if she left work. She’d give anything to be a SAHM. I don’t really think it matters who pays for nappies, what matters is it’s now normal for babies to be at nursery.

Well, this discussion is set to get interesting!

I think you might be right.

My children were both born and attended nursery in Sweden which offers subsidised nursery which includes all food and all activities. We provided nappies. The food was freshly made and everyone ate the same - although dietary requirements were catered for.

In Sweden nursery does not exist for babies but starts at 1 year as parents use the generous parental leave - 390 days at 80% salary and 90 days at a lower level.

Nursery fees are limited as a fixed percentage of parental income: 3% for 1st child, 2% 2nd child, 1% third child, subsequent children are free. The absolute maximum fee is £120 per month.

The generous nursery provision also means that parents are required to work. There are very few SAHPs in Sweden other than parental leave. One of the people in my Swedish GCSE class was a 17 year old who had a baby at 16. After her year at home she was required to work or return to education. She is now a nurse.

what about the folk who hava family while they have good jobs and high salaries and it all goes belly up? What do you think THEY should do with the kids they aready have? Should they drop them off an an orphanage with anote round their neck saying "my family cant afford to have me now ..so I'm surplus to requirements" What "nonsense" to borrow your own wordBeau people often have the family they can afford and then life gets in the way .YOU believe we should punish the children because the parents have hit hard times?

The fact that families can no longer manage on one salary is very sad, and forces some people to go to work when they would rather be able to be a SAHP. But, given that this is the case, there needs to be affordable high quality provision.

The free child care that the government is offering is fine in principle; but in practice monitoring quality is very hit and miss, and, just as with residential and nursing homes, most nurseries cannot afford to run on the fee that the government pays them and are charging for "extras" - e.g. for care during the lunch hour. So it is not really free.

TBH, I am less than happy with the idea of small children having to be cared for away from their parents or wider family members. And the long long days for small children in reception with breakfast club, school all day, then after school club take their toll.

Having noticed that 'Beau' hails from the Wirral, (I'm on the Wirral/Cheshire border) can I just make it perfectly plain that she/he does not speak for the majority of us Wirralians!

Presumably Beau is male Juggernaut, otherwise would be Belle do you think?

Jalima
I don't know and I don't care, I just wanted to make it plain that not all, or even many, Wirralians share 'Beau's point of view!

Why such a snippy response to a tongue-in-cheek post of mine?