George Osborne Gets Stay-at-home Mothers Back to Work

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: The Chancellor wants to see nearly 500,000 more women in the workplace by the beginning of 2016, which would allow the UK to match the female employment rate in Germany

Hundreds of thousands of stay-at-home mothers will be encouraged to go to work under Government plans to reform childcare in the UK.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, wants to see nearly 500,000 more women in the workplace by the beginning of 2016, which would allow the UK to match the female employment rate in Germany.

The Treasury said it will achieve the target by increasing access to childcare across the country, giving Britain one of the highest rates of female employment in the world.

However, campaigners warned that the Government risks unnecessarily “stigmatising” stay-at-home mothers.

Mr Osborne said that the Government will “support women who want to work” and said that the figures show they “are playing an ever larger role in the economy”. » | Peter Dominiczak, and Steven Swinford | Wednesday, October 22, 2014

My comment:

This Chancellor must be stupid! This is exactly the opposite of what the Chancellor should be encouraging. Children need their mothers to be at home; they don’t need them to be absent, in the workplace. Can’t this Chancellor observe all around him the result of increasing numbers of mothers going out to work?

Clearly, it is high time to kick this shower out of office. They have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they are unworthy of the trust that the voters have placed in them. – © Mark

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle Cannot Rock the Boardroom

Allison Pearson took on a gathering of ferociously ambitious Chinese businesswomen to argue that you can't excel in the boardroom and be the perfect mother at home

Read and comment on the Telegraph article here | Friday, March 21, 2014
My comment:

I must confess that I find it hard to understand women’s obsession with having it all: a career, motherhood, and wifehood. It seems to me that they end up like the proverbial dog chasing its tail – always attempting to catch it, but never quite doing so.

Whatever happened to the concept of mothers putting baby first? Whatever happened to mothers tending to baby’s needs, first and foremost?

This obsession women have of being successful in their careers has led to an awful lot of trouble in society. To start with, the divorce rate has shot through the roof. Further, the house is often no longer the home. It was always said that the mother was the heart of the home; but with mothers being absent from the home for much of the day, they can no longer fulfil this rôle properly.

Then we come to the fact that all these working mothers have driven up the price of houses. So much so that it is now virtually impossible for many married couples even to entertain the idea that the wife might be better off staying home, rather than going out to the workplace.

But what have we gained in all this? Are people really so much better off? And what about the health of the mother? Are they really doing their long-term health any good by pushing themselves so much? And this, of course, ignores the long-term damage done to so many children, many of whom simply go off the rails.

I’d be interested to know if any others feel as I do. Am I really such a lone voice? – © Mark

This comment appears here too.

George Osborne Accused of 'Patronising' Stay-at-home Mothers

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: George Osborne has been accused of "patronising" stay-at-home mothers after saying that they have made a "lifestyle choice" and should not receive childcare vouchers.


The Chancellor today unveiled a scheme to encourage women back into the workplace by handing up to £1,200 of taxpayer-funded childcare for each child to families where both parents have a job.

He said that he had "huge respect" for stay-at-home mothers and said that the government will "help" their families by introducing tax breaks for married couples.

However Laura Perrins, a stay-at-home mother who took on the Deputy Prime Minister during a radio phone earlier this year, said that the reported £120 tax breaks were "pathetic" compared to the value of childcare vouchers.

She said: "Saying stay-at-home mothers have made a lifestyle choice is pejorative and patronising. They are contributing to the economy, to society, to everything. Staying at home is not a luxury, it's not a hobby. Women who chose to stay at home make huge sacrifices. » | Steven Swinford, Senior Political Correspondent | Monday, August 05, 2013

Related »

Full-time Mothers Penalised by Government, Says Bishop of Exeter
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Mothers who choose to stay at home to care for their children are being unfairly penalised by a Government that has failed to reward their role at the heart of society, the Bishop of Exeter said on Wednesday night.


The Bishop of Exeter said that traditional families were being hit by the Coalition in a manner that was “actually unfair” and which risked costing society more in the future.

The Rt Rev Michael Langrish, who sits in the House of Lords, said that his views represented those of a number of bishops who are concerned by the Government’s apparent lack of support for family life.

Over the past few months, ministers have removed child benefit from wealthier families with one breadwinner and restricted financial help with child care to those mothers returning to work, yet repeatedly delayed a promise to bring in tax breaks for married couples.

On [sic] Wednesday, an official international study found that single-earner families in Britain were now paying more tax than the international norm — and had seen their financial position worsen significantly since the Coalition was formed. A leading charity is now also warning that economic circumstances are effectively forcing new mothers back to work too early because they cannot afford to stay at home. Working Families said it had been contacted by at least one major employer worried about the health implications of mothers cutting short their maternity leave.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday night, the Rt Rev Langrish said society needs to place a greater value on the role of stay-at-home mothers and fathers, who were part of “the glue which enables us to be a healthy society”. He said the impact was being felt in “middle England” adding: “The concern for me is for those who have made a principled decision to stay at home and taken the financial hit. It is actually unfair and against the Government’s own rhetoric.” » | Rowena Mason, Political Correspondent | Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Horseshit! Babies Don't Suffer When Mothers Return to Work, Study Reveals
THE OBSERVER: Findings overturn earlier research on working mothers / Gains of being in employment outweigh disadvantages

A ground-breaking study has found that mothers can go back to work months after the birth of their child without the baby's wellbeing suffering as a result.

By assessing the total impact on a child of the mother going out to work, including factors outside the home, American academics claim to have produced the first full picture of the effect of maternal employment on child cognitive and social development. Their conclusion will provide comfort for thousands of women who re-enter the employment market within a year of giving birth.

"The good news is that we can see no adverse effects," said American academic Jane Waldfogel, currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. "This research is unique because the question we have always asked in the past has been: 'If everything else remains constant, what is the effect of a mum going off to work?' But of course everything else doesn't stay constant, so it's an artificial way of looking at things.

"Family relationships, family income, the mental health of the mother all change when a mother is working and so what we did was to look at the full impact, taking all of these things into account."

In one of the most fraught areas of social policy and research, several studies over the past two decades have suggested that children do worse if their mothers go back to work in the first year of their lives.

Recent research by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Essex University found that children of mothers who went back to work within the first three years were slower learners, and a 2008 Unicef study recommended that mothers stay at home for the first 12 months or "gamble" with their children's development. The Pew Research Centre in Washington found high levels of anxiety among women over the issue.

The new study, led by New York's Columbia University School of Social Work, was published last week by the Society for Research in Child Development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care followed more than 1,000 children from 10 geographic areas aged up to seven, tracking their development and family characteristics.

It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their child's first year, there were also significant advantages – an increase in mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said, the net effect was neutral. >>> Tracy McVeigh and Anushka Asthana | Sunday, August 01, 2010

This study is suspect, to say the least. To start with, wasn’t it conducted by a working mother?

To say that “babies don’t suffer when mothers return to work” is about as stupid as it gets! Do these idiots think that babies bring themselves up?

This study flies in the face of hundreds, nay thousands, of years of experience with raising our offspring. It also seems to fly in the face of earlier, probably more believable, studies.

Fact is that children need mothers at home. We can see this when we look around us, and see how badly-raised so many children are today. It’s the mother who gives the child the informal education it needs. Formal education comes from the schools it attends; but informal education comes from the home. And if there is no-one in the home to supply it, the child has to do without it. This is exactly what is happening today, because so many mothers today are selfish and choose to work instead of raising their offspring.

Whilst material goods are nice to have, they are no substitute for the love, support and guidance a stay-at-home mother can give. The fact that many young people today have abysmal language skills, no dress sense or no culinary skills, no table manners, and further, they are often obese to the point of endangering their own health, all point to children who have lacked a good start in life. To say that babies don’t suffer when their mothers return prematurely to the workplace is about as stupid as saying that one’s partner, when gravely ill, will not suffer when one goes out to work and leaves him or her to the gods! – © Mark

Children Whose Mothers Work Are 'Less Healthy'
THE TELEGRAPH: The children of working mothers are less healthy than those who stay at home, according to an authoritative study by British researchers.

Almost two out of three mothers with children under five work in Britain with numbers expected to rise, but new research has shown this can affect children's health.

In a study which will cause renewed debate over who have to divide their time between caring for their offspring and going out to work, the researchers found children whose mothers worked were more likely to be driven to school, to watch more than two hours of TV a day, and have sweetened drinks between meals.

Children of mothers who worked full time also ate less fruit and vegetables, the study suggests.

Middle class families suffer the same problems as the findings remained similar even when household income was taken into account, the paper said.

Encouraging mothers to return to work has been a key Labour policy and Patricia Hewitt said in 2004 when she was Trade and Industry Secretary that mothers who do not return to work were 'a real problem'.

The research, on more than 12,000 British children aged five, was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. >>> Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor | Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Working Mums Have the Unhealthiest Children, Research Finds
TIMES ONLINE: Children brought up by mothers who work are less healthy and more likely to have poor dietary habits and a more sedentary lifestyle, research suggests.

Mothers in full-time work, including those who work flexible hours, were found to have children who eat too few portions of fruit and vegetables, watch more television and consume more fizzy drinks than the children of mothers who stay at home.

The research, published today in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, involved more than 12,000 British schoolchildren born between 2000 and 2002 who are part of the Millennium Cohort Study. Trends being explored include the rise in childhood obesity and policies that have encouraged women to return to work.

Researchers questioned mothers about the hours they worked and their children’s diet, exercise and activity levels when the youngsters were aged 5. They also asked how long their childdren spent in front of a TV or computer. About 30 per cent (4,030) of the mothers had not worked since giving birth but the rest (8,546) were employed. On average they worked 21 hours per week and for 45 months.

Catherine Law, of the Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Institute of Child Health, University College London, told The Times the analysis showed that mothers who worked full-time had the unhealthiest children, followed by those who worked part-time.

Making use of flexible working arrangements while in full-time employment did not appear to improve a child’s habits, she added. “We have seen the rising rates of childhood obesity and the rise in initiatives to get women back to work, and that is what this research explores,” Professor Law said. >>> Sam Lister, Health Editor | Tuesday, September 29, 2009