The Guardian can sometimes be very funny, sometimes intentionally, but I never expected to see vicious satire at the expense of a left winger. Dea Birkett writes about the joys of having a nanny.

It used to be my guilty secret. I only ever whispered the "N" word to my very closest friends. If pressed, I might talk about my "childminder" - a lie, but far easier to live with, and rather less likely to attract tut-tutting. After all, how could a self-respecting left-leaning professional woman do such a thing?
But now, at last, I can confess: I employ a nanny to look after my children.

What could account for such a rise? The first reason must be money. These days, employing a nanny is about reducing costs, not increasing class status. According to the Daycare Trust, nursery fees have soared over the past five years, outstripping inflation by more than 20%. In London, a full-time nursery place costs around £200 per week; some nurseries charge up to £20,000 per year.

If you have two pre-school children (as I once did), it's often cheaper to employ one person in your home than pay for two places in the local nursery. According to Graham Newton, who runs a payroll company called NannyPaye, recent government financial incentives such as childcare vouchers make nannies an even more attractive option. And despite reports of the modern nanny demanding City banker incomes, Newton's experience is that salaries have settled. "The influx of labour from the new European countries has made a difference," he says. "They may not be UK-qualified, but they fulfil the upmarket au pair role. It has capped the wages nannies are demanding, making them slightly more reasonable."

It's cheaper still if you share that nanny with friends or a neighbour, as is increasingly happening. An estimated 65% of nannies are now looking after children from more than one family. The internet has made it far easier to chum up. Enter your postcode on a site such as thenannysharers.co.uk and you can be linked with a compatible family close by. Sharing also overcomes the major drawback to having your very own nanny. Before my kids started school and I had a (secret) sole nanny, I felt obliged to take them along to every Saturday morning activity on offer so that they spent time with like-minded mini-mates. With nanny sharing, your kids have built-in friends.

Like the vast majority of working parents, flexible childcare makes my working life possible. Dropping the kids off at nursery en route to the first interview is a major manoeuvre - I know, I've tried it for more than a year. I didn't only have to worry about not having posit on my suit but also having three kids all brushed and washed by 7.30am. With a nanny, your kids can work to their timetable, not yours. The delight of being able to hand them over first thing, still cornflake-encrusted and in their pyjamas, is immeasurable for all concerned. And if you have a child with any special need - from disability to long-term illness - care outside the home often isn't an option. Only a nanny will do what you would if you were around.

Nannies, too, do far more than childcare. If you are running out of washing powder, you can't ask the nursery assistant to pick up a packet on the way back from the park. Or if you are rushing out the door in the morning to catch the 8.42 and your four-year old has just spilt its Frosties all over the floor, you hope they won't still be there when you get back at seven that night. A nanny may not clean, but she nearly always wipes.

My three children have now started school, but I still employ a nanny. Neither my life nor my children's are very regimented, so it suits us all best. In fact, I wouldn't have been able to write this article without her.

Um, it is a parody, right? The alternative is that a Guardian writer is advocating good left wing families do what they would denounce Nike for doing. Nah, the Guardian would never do that.