AIBU to wonder if a stay-at-home mum could become an MP?

[Questionsssss]

Do you think a degree educated, middle class 30 year old SAHM without any notable work history would ever have a chance at becoming a local councillor or MP? I feel like most MPs have either a local council or highly skilled professional background (law, finance etc). I’ve googled and I can’t find a single MP who has a SAHM background.

Exactly - "for women" and helping women if that means staying at home in the kitchen where they belong. 🙄
Reform in a nutshell.

I doubt the OP is coming back, but I’d really like her to explain how this would work for family finances. When I went back to work after maternity leave ten years ago, DH and I had a household income of about £55k (low by mumsnet standards, I suppose). I went back three days a week while he was full time, and nursery was about £50 a day (we didn’t get funded hours until 3 at that time). My monthly wage less the nursery costs was about £500 (we actually both used the childcare vouchers scheme so it came from both our salaries, but the total was the same.

We would have struggled on just his wage and things would have been very tight, but that £500 meant things were easier, and unexpected bills didn’t cause stress, though we still lived fairly frugally (no holidays except to see family, no nights out, second hand clothes for DD). It was fine.

So any tax break for me would have had to equal that £500 per month, and I honestly don’t think that DH paid that much tax at that time! How would it work? Would we just get a fixed amount based on his salary rather than my potential earning, which might not have been enough? I’m not familiar enough with tax breaks to know how this could be set up.

That doesn’t even mention the loss of my pension contributions , and whether I could find a new job when DD went back to school, or how these tax cuts would be funded…

OP, you are still ignoring any questions on what you currently do within your community. To get elected you either need to join a political party and work your way up to get selected for nomination for councillor, or you would need to stand as an independent and fund the campaign yourself. You would need to prove to the party of your choice that you support their aims, are prepared to work hard for the party and the community and that other members see you as the best candidate. It’s not a foregone conclusion to be selected. Good luck to you though, as it can only benefit your community if you start to work for a party and volunteer.

So how does that philosophy square with you becoming an MP? Offhand, I can't think of any job that is less family friendly. Who would be looking after your still very young children while you are spending long days and nights in Westminster and every weekend on constituency business and events? I doubt you would see much of them, but then again, perhaps.the life of a SAHM isn't quite as idyllic as you hoped?

To be quite honest, I think you're the ideal Reform candidate; selfish, blinkered and punching down. Im sure they'll welcome you with open arms.

I haven't read past the first place but how's this tax cut being funded then, if we're encouraging women to stay at home and not and pay taxes?

The thing as well with "these traditional values" is that there is a plethora of research that actually shows despite mums working, they spend MORE time with their children and doing active parenting than before. Which contradicts her own view (which isn't backed up by any research) that the "behaviours" of the youth is somehow about mums going out to work.

The thing is women have always worked whether that be in the house or out of it. Both my parents grew up in the 1950/60s and had upbringing similar to most working class families. Yes both my grandmothers stayed at home but they weren't at home taking my parents as young kids to toddler groups or rhyme time at the church or spending their day doing nurturing activities with their children. My mum said she remembers from an early age being shoved out to play in the street so that her mum could do the housework.

Women staying at home during this time, their housework was the job and it wasn't something you did in an evening when the kids were in bed. Even things like doing laundry was very labour intensive which took all day or would involve my grandmother going to the "steamie". There was no online shopping so you had to go to several shops to get what you wanted. There were no dishwashers or tumble driers. Even things like vacuuming took a lot longer. The gadgets that exist that made our lives easier noe weren't a thing back then.

The OP wants to stand for Reform, which isn’t a political party. It’s a limited company.

She could give them some money to become a supporter, which I’m sure they’d love, but they don’t have a party structure in the traditional sense. Which is ironic given just how traditional they are in all other ways. They also, on the basis of the number of elected councillors who have resigned or been suspended, don’t much care about any candidate’s interest in or commitment to politics.

Even given how easy it appears to be to get a Reform nomination, I don’t think the OP would be successful, as Reform have vowed to end working from home, so the role would be entirely unsuitable for a stay at home mother.

well Id say life experience rather than experience is the key thing. I'm also a SAHM, degree educated but haven't worked in nearly 11 years. and working class.
but I worked in social housing and youth work, I volunteer in youth services and mental health related roles plus previously a role around sustainability and environmental protection. if I had to write a manifesto I could conjure up more than "tax cuts for middle class men so the wives dont have to work".
too left leaning to get in round by me tho.

ha.
some people are sahp's out of necessity. We're not all lunching with the ladies and planning how to spend our husbands bonus.
however given op wants tax cuts for her hubby, and to use carers allowance to do it, I'd say you'd called right in this one

I agree with this - seriously, not all mums are ladies who lunches or whatever romanticised crap people might have in their head!
Some of us were because we literally couldn't afford to go to back to work. It would have actually cost us to go to work every day.
What would even have been the point? Where were we supposed to magic up the £100 a month transport from?! Extra money? There literally would have been none, all of it would have been eaten by nursery and school fees.

It could work but you’d need a lot of help
with childcare either paid or unpaid. Grandparents and/or Nannie’s. If you want something bad enough you make it work.

This is so accurate. Life was very different even 70 years ago, and keeping up the house was a major commitment. In Victorian times laundry was a multi day affair. The richer families could hire someone, almost always a woman, to do it for you. Women have always worked, they just either didn't get paid or got paid significantly less. We like to have rose colored glasses of the past but reality is that idealized version never existed. If anything the past was a lot worse. I would hate being a stay at home mother. I need to be able to make my own money and have my own purpose and identity. Pretty sure I would have stuck my head in an oven if I was a 1950s housewife.

Okay. You lost me there. You sound like a throwback to the 1950s. And your 'plan' for what you'd do if divorced shows that you have no idea of the realities of life for the vast majority of people.

If you weren't planning to be a Reform candidate, I'd say that getting selected would be your problem. But it seems they'll take anyone.

I completely agree that we need to support families and working parents. Especially if we want to raise a generation of the next workers and tax payers to be healthy and happy.

However I don't think that demanding women out of the work place and back at home is the way to do it. Child poverty levels in our country are shocking. And yet the OP seems to think the way of doing this is to reduce household income and reduce the amount of people paying tax. And provide tax breaks too? How is all this being funded?

So many people like the OP have this one track mind that somehow it's a singular issue like two parents being at work somehow contributes to poor mental health of children and young people nowadays despite the fact this has not been backed up by research and would be impossible to quantify anyway because of all the varying factors in a person's childhood.

Yes poor quality childcare can be a problem but this can happen at nursery or at home. We also have a cost of living crisis, lack of investment in public services over the last few decades, lack of money available for schools, social work, health etc and less community places like sure start centres or community centres than before as well. Children nowadays have less freedom than they did before, they don't play outside like they used to and lose the skills in confidence, independence and resilience this brings. Some children have less outdoor time than prisoners. There's also a rise in social media which has been proven again and again to be harmful to young people.

These are the issues at hand causing harm. Not women going to work. Countries like Finland invest heavily in their early years education. People working there have to have a degree, there's a lot of focus on outside play and it's subsided too and a lower cost. They always out perform us on happiness and education rates and they have a culture where children attend daycare from an early age.

I would like to see progressive policies, not regressive policies to support children and families. Things like:

Better paternity leave
More investment in early years as mentioned above.
Flexible working
Affordable childcare
Investment in public services
More action on the harm that screens and social media do to young children
More work to be done on the importance of outside play for children and awareness of safe community spaces

I can't see it happening though!

I'm also not sure I could bring myself to vote (not that I'd ever vote reform anyway!) for a candidate who's main policy is arguing for women to be stay at home mums while working herself and drawing a large wage from the tax payer.

Does the OP not the see irony in this?

My mum and her siblings were born in the 50s and both of her parents worked full time. The kids were looking after each other and doing house work from a very early age. 🤷🏻‍♀️

What I look for in an MP, apart from intelligence and rational thinking, is commitment and experience.

Being a long term SAHM with only four years in a career would be off-putting, especially with zero community engagement in politics or high level volunteering.

Anyone aiming to be an MP should have a fair amount of professional experience, or an alternative, like union work or being a committed local councillor, IMO. If standing as an MP was a job interview, one would be looking for relevant and high quality experience. And you don't have it.

Op as man have said at least in local government few of your views would be relevant to the position.
I relation to tax breaks for SAHP you can transfer your tax allowance to your partner.
In terms of your wish to increase parental leave please be aware that reform wish to REDUCE this.
In terms of those faking benefits shop them if you feel strongly, everyone says PIP is easy but with pip terminally I'll patients don't even get to claim unless they have less than 6 months left to live so that doesn't sound that cosy.
Most carers are in work because carers allowance is pitiful.
Can I ask with your views on abortion and single families, what would you do to ensure MEN take responsibility for their lack of abstention?

Yes my mum describes herself being a "latch key" kid despite the fact her mum was at home.

I think some people are nostalgic for this idea that women stayed at home as this nurturing, caring figure completely dedicated to their child's wellbeing and development which is in stark contrast to the majority of people who had stay at homes mums in the past to which the OP seems to have rose tinted views of this era

I can bet my mums upbringing was very similar to those of her generation. As soon as they could walk, they were shoved outside to play and pretty much left to fend for themselves while her mum got on with the housework. Food was what was available and cheap and a lot of it deep fried. They weren't worrying about nurtrional content of the food. They weren't spending hours doing homework with kids, or playing with them during the day, or providing them with emotional support or organising play dates. Of course they were loved and cared for but it was a very different time.

I'd love the OP to come back though and actually respond more to the posts above.ĺ

Without ANY work history at 30? I don’t think anyone without any work experience could land an £88k job tbh - what would they bring to the role? A SAHM who worked before having kids maybe. Although then being an MP would mean they weren’t a SAHM anymore.

You can’t transfer tax allowance if your DH is a higher earner. So most SAHP can’t use that.

You seem pretty clueless about how society actually works and very judgemental with spiteful political views, so reform would be absolutely perfect for you, go for it, OP.

Just look at some of the absolute bottom feeders they select who go on to get elected and you won’t worry about your lack of experience for long! it’s an easy grift.

That's it exactly, if the OP becomes a MP then she isn't a SAHM anymore which seems completely ironic given she's arguing that women should be staying at home until their kids are teens.

And from what I gather too, it isn't a job that can be done during school hours and term time. And it involves a lot of travel too.

It will be interesting to see how she does this without childcare!

Your political stance is that women should stay home and be entirely financially dependent on a man and tax breaks?

Unless they are caring for a disabled child/family member in which case they’d better get a job to pay for a private carer?

Except you, someone with basically zero work experience or relevant education, to whom we should pay 80k per year?

What about your children who will become delinquents and ruffians without their loving mother sitting on her arse all day while they’re at school?