Who is going to care for all these extra children?

And we've already seen what happened when the free hours for three year olds was introduced. All those children under three had fees put up to help pay for the scheme. Cost of food rocketed too.

Wasn't that because the money nurseries got from the government wasn't actually enough to cover the costs of those free places?

Anyway, how many babies under the age of 9 months are in nursery provision and, are posters anticipating a stampede of mothers to go back to work and abandon their children from 9 months onward? I can see that there might be a small increase in the take up of nursery places and I suspect that there are enough currently unemployed qualified personnel who can take up the extra work.

I also can't see a massive reduction in care by families, apart from cases where family members are reluctant to step in or find it difficult to offer childcare.

I think a more pertinent question might be 'are the providers going to be properly paid for this'?

Childcare in this country has never been solved. In my own experience, unless you have granny, auntie, neighbour etc who are willing to help out, you can forget it. I don't believe these promises. Norway, Sweden etc have great childcare but people there pay huge amounts of tax.

The same thing happened here in Germany. They decided that all children from the age of 2 (potty-trained or not) had a right to a creche place. Of course, the facilities and the staff were nowhere near enough.

Yet another case of putting the cart before the horse.

3 year olds can attend mainstream infant school in this country which relieves at least a years nursery fees. Most are potty-trained by then.

I know that here in Scotland the Scottish Government in their wisdom have extended nursery places before finding premises or staff to run them but not to 35 hours a week which is what the LibDems are talking about.

The latest thing are Forest Kindergartens where the children are outside thus saving on the cost of heated premises. Seeing as how the playing fields have been sold off for housing, there is precious little accommodation near primary schools.

It is a choice- and of course staff and suitable premises will take time to find, train and adapt. But once the choice has been made, it can be done, and quickly. Near me an ex industrial site has been adapted in a matter of months.

Children are walked to and from school and the new site by staff and volunteers- works very well. Where there is a will...

In France, it has been the norm since the war that children attend nursery from a very young age.

I don't think the idea is to encourage mothers to 'abandon' babies, but to provide financial help for those who need to or want to work. those accusing them of abandonment would be criticising them as 'benefit scroungers' otherwise.

For many people, the cost of childcare is prohibitive because of low wages, and those on zero hours (or so-called 'flexible' contracts) would need to have full time childcare in place when they might only be paid for a few hours.

It is interesting that it is mothers, rather than 'parents' who are assumed to be the ones doing the abandoning, too.

I think free childcare is a great idea. There will be parents who won't take this up until their child is older, because mothers who can afford to take their years maternity leave will continue to do so. But there will also be provision for those parents who do not cope well. I would like to see the provision linked with something like Sure start which helped parents who weren't coping, but giving any help will pay dividends. And it may encourage lower paid parents to stay in work, at present child care costs are so high it means working for some isn't worthwhile. I do hope that staff would be well trained and properly paid for such a valuable job. Well organised and funded childcare benefits everyone.

In Denmark we have had state-run day care for children from three months upwards since the 1970s. Without it women would not have been able to work full time.

It worked well in the 1970s when there was suitable public funding to employ the number of nurses for the little ones and kindergarten teachers for the bigger children that were needed.

Since the 1980s local authorities have tried to cut back on opening hours, staff numbers etc.

This resulted in an increase in private day-care, where, strangely enough you may only look after four children on your own. - In the nurseries they are dealing with double that number, plus a few extra tacked on. And I say dealing with advisedly, as leaving children all day in wet nappies and only changing them if their nappies are dirty, is not looking after children in my opinion.

So yes, if there is properly trained staff in sufficient numbers available, council or state run day care can be marvellous. It was in the 1970s here, but if not, it should be the last option parents choose.

The other thing to be aware of is, that once day-care exists, receiving unemployment benefit becomes conditional upon ones child being in day-care! If you look after your own child, you are not available to take a job, so no unemployment benefit.

I can tell you from personal experience that many nurseries and preschools will not offer the present 30 hours for children over 3 but are still offering the original 15.
This is because the amount the paid to the school by the local authorities is so below the actual amount it costs to have fully qualified staff, good premises and all that that entails ,it is hard to make a profit.
That is why preschools are closing.

So it begs the question....will this be properly funded?

This free nursery bandwagon is not as good as it sounds. The govt gives the nurseries only a minimal amount per hour for these children. Established nurseries have closed because they couldn't make ends meet on what the govt gives them.

I doubt it Yehutnobut, if the current under financing is anything to go by.

Have they said how much it will cost and where the money's to come from, or did I miss that?

Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, are often cited as the near perfect example for early childhood care. and I believe most parents use the creches. The staff are properly trained and paid.

The Maternelles in France too though they begin at age 3, I think, and are only partially state funded.

Affordable provision of good childcare is essential in my opinion, but I hope you are right Jura and the whole set up can happen quickly and well. not cynical at all!

Not just anybody can or wants to, look after small children and if we (Society) treat childcare as a low status job, that's what it will be, I fear.

Such emotive talk of mothers abandoning their babies! What nonsense.

I have five GC, all of whom have been in child care of some sort, and they are all perfectly normal children. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that they've benefited from it in ways my own children didn't by being at home with me. They're so much more confident and sociable than my own were, plus they have amazing opportunities that few parents can provide.

Maybe, though, the answer would be to pay mothers for a full year's maternity leave so that they could decide for themselves whether or to go back to work when their child was younger than one year.

Such emotive talk of mothers abandoning their babies! What nonsense

As the poster who originally used the word 'abandon' can I make it quite clear that it wasn't meant to be pejorative or judgemental in any way. It was more to counter any suggestion that a mother 'should' go back to work when her child was 9 months old 'because' free childcare was on offer.

And, I was trying to think my way round why there might be a surge in demand for childcare that would cause the shortage of trained carers suggested by the OP.

I think there would be a surge in demand for free childcare, if it is non-means tested.

For many women, the cost of childcare is prohibitive, and I can imagine that those paying for it would prefer to use free services, or claim vouchers, or however it would supposedly work.

I think it is a good idea, and would go some way to levelling the playing field for women in the workplace; but I can't see it happening, not least because there is very little chance that the Lib Dems will win the election.

Must say I used to think that one to one was better - I was at home with mine until they started very part time playgroup at 3 - but my Gdd was in a nursery 3 full days a week from 9 months and apart from the initial tears for a day or two, she flourished - there were so many activities, the staff were lovely, and she learned very early to share, wait her turn, sit nicely to eat, etc.

It was a necessity for dd, who had to work 4 days a week (hefty mortgage to pay). Dh and I looked after her for the other day.

But yes, I do wonder where all the extra staff/nursery places are going to come from.

My own DC went to playgroups at abt 3 yrs and/or morning nursery from 3 to 5yrs. School was a bit later. We had informal toddler groups too. I don't think they missed out except on what DD calls the opportunity to catch every infection going.
I still think you can't beat a good childminder / nanny or granny for babycare. I have seen at least one day nursery in action and there is not the individual attention a baby needs.
However half of our DGC have parents who work full time and who are in nurseries from early days.
Families are different now.

I completely agree. It’s an awful idea.

I have never been convinced that all the mothers who work really need to financially.

I hate the thought of state run nurseries full of tots who should be at home with their mum

And what about the children whose parents (not just mothers) do need to work?

What a horribly judgmental post!

BTW Both my children were in a full-time nursery from the age of five and a half months. They've actually turned out rather well!

So what if some mums work because it's what they want to do? That doesn't mean it wrong. Why do we never say that the dads should stay at home to look after the children?

If you know anything of history you'll also know that stay-at-home mums are a 20th century phenomenon. Women have always had to work, be it in the fields or, after the industrial revolution, in factories. During the world wars women stepped in to fill the vacancies left by men going off to war. Those same women were then put out on their ears as the surviving men came home and took back their jobs. That's when the stay-at-home-mum became a thing.