Who is going to care for all these extra children?

SueDonim, reading some of the comments on this thread, and others like it, the answer to your question about what women are supposed to do when the have a family is simples. They stop work, give up anything other than looking after their children and of course, their 'husbands'. Easy init.

Please define 'better at looking after...'. . Caring for a baby is hardly rocket science. Most competent people can manage it.

I'm actually quite shocked at the judgmental attitudes towards women on this thread. I thought Gransnetters were better than that.

What are women supposed to do when they have a family? Why can't they do same as the fathers, combine work and family? No doubt all those complaining about working mothers will also be complaining in the future if my student-medic daughter decides to have children and goes part time with her work.

come on grapefruit - why should it be? Nonsense.

( to I am)

because the Mother is better at looking after her offspring?

This is so obviously touting for votes from young women, pathetic really.

Free childcare should only be for those mothers who have no choice but to work.

When I married I made the choice of staying at home and being a wife and mother. Why do so many women have babies and pay someone else to bring them up?

I understand why many women can't stand being stuck in the house all day...others work because they want the material things it brings them.

So why have babies? Caring for your baby is extremely satisfying. If you don't want to care for them, why have them?

poor wee things.

We should invest in high quality early years support for families. All the research evidence confirms children and their families benefit. Countries who do invest (the Scandi ones) have fewer teenage pregnancies, or other so called social problems.
My four young grandchildren are all in either pre school, or nursery 2 or 3 days a week. The cost is astronomical but their parents both want to and financially need to work.
I\ve yet to have anyone explain to me why its 'the mother' who should remain at home with the children, whilst 'the father' works.

When DD1 went back to work when GS was 8 months- it almost cost them money as childcare was so expensive. But they worked out that in the long-term- she would more than make up for it. When GD went to nursery, she had already caught up- but still a large % of her salary was going into childcare. And it paid off - kids happy and doing really well at secondary school, and DD1 at the top of her profession, with very few women at her level.

I believe I read that in the Scandinavian countries most nurseries are state run and fees are very heavily subsidised. Also nursery staff are highly trained and reasonably paid.

Of course, there is a substantial cost to this, but, in the long run, I would imagine that cost is recouped because there will be far fewer children in sub-standard nurseries, receiving sub-standard care and they will be better prepared, physically, practically and emotionally, for school and life in general. Some of the nurseries I see in my area are in what I consider to be inappropriate buildings and locations - with little natural light and very limited outdoor space.

Children who are behind at the start of their education often fail to catch up and may well become disruptive - and this can carry through to secondary level. With significant numbers of young people leaving school with virtually no meaningful qualifications, something drastic needs to be done. Young people who lack basic skills are more likely to spend their lives in low paid, insecure jobs, and so the circle of deprivation continues with their own children.

The Sure Start scheme worked very well but has been torn apart during the last ten years. At least that was something which helped parents who needed extra support with issues like nutrition, interactive and independent play, how to set sensible boundaries and how to enforce them in a calm but firm and effective way.

Not all mothers do need to work, and not all do. But I think with costs of housing in particular being very much higher than in the 70's, usually two incomes are needed. Aside from that, I think it is important that women have, if a relationship breaks up, a job that pays well and has prospects for advancement - ie a career rather than just working for pin money. Many young women have degrees and naturally wish to make use of them.

Lots of parents have to (both) work due to the high cost of rent or mortgages here in the south, so it’s not a choice!
Child care provision is ridiculously expensive! My youngest DD has 1 in nursery 2 days a week and despite the “free” hours which should cover the bill, she has to top up the nursery fees by £100 a month! As a (now) single parent she can’t afford this so it falls to me to make the payment. Another two days a week I provide child care, but this will have to stop next year because I will be returning to work from sick leave! Heaven knows how she will manage then!

hear hear SueDonim. In many professions too, taking a few years off work means you would find it very very difficult to catch up- and never get to the top of the profession- with women always the ones sacrificing their career.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.