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.

I was going to ask how you would manage to maintain your adherence to a woman’s presence at home being your main policy point, when MPs spend most of the week away from their constituencies, in Westminster, working all hours, and then cram in daytime and evening commitments in their constituencies in the tiny amount of time left over.

But then I saw you would be standing for Reform, and clearly they don’t bother representing their constituents in Westminster, so you’d probably be fine.

They won’t look at you twice unless you have a few spare millions to bankroll their increasingly close to the legal line advertising, though, or a few very rich overseas contacts who are inexplicably interested in paying for political activity in the UK. Can’t think why.

Yes this would be another way it could work. I don’t claim to know best about everything, but I do think we need to spend more time with our children as a country.

Correct me if I’m wrong, so you want to cut benefits, but then apply tax cuts for families, but only if the mum stays at home? So only people like you will benefit?

How many families, even with tax cuts can afford for only 1 parent to be working?

What about single parent families? Do they not deserve tax cuts?

Your comments on mental health and ADHD are really ignorant sorry.

Absolutely. I used to work closely with elected members and they come from all walks of life. In the vast majority of cases, they are lovely to work with and have a real passion for their communities. Even when I don’t agree with them politically, I appreciate that they believe they can make a difference and value that they work hard for their constituents - and sometimes take a lot of flak for doing so, and for very little money. One SAHM councillor confided that she went into local politics because it was either that or she’d end up having an affair with her tennis instructor!

Well children that are disabled would obviously still receive this.

What do you mean by 'traditional family values'?

If you mean big man goes to work and little woman stays behind with 2 kids Swinging off her apron.. then no, I would not vote for you.

Quite apart from the fact you seem fairly clueless about the economic realities of life for many. I mean - you just mentioned ina post about how having a stay at home mum means more time to cook nutrirous meals. Wheres the money coming from for most families to give up one wage and still afford the huge costs related to healthy eating?

I’d hope not. I would want an MP with civil service or industry experience plus actual experience turning up to work every day. That said, half of them seem to be mostly trust fund babies, so maybe no one cares. 😂

It is benefitting the country, of course it is. But hand on heart, can you honestly say that toddlers and children are better in full time childcare so that both parents can work? Or teens in the house alone/doing whatever they want a lot as both parents are working?
When the sahm is educated and the household has plenty of spare money and few worries? Like you...potentially...

When the sahm is being financially and emotionally abused by her partner, is stressed and depressed, has low education and looking after the children is putting them in front of the screen... definitely not.

OP, can't you see that your privileged position is a minority of society?

So as well as your short lived career in publishing you qualified as a doctor specialising in adult mental health and children’s disabilities?

And brought up your children on home cooked meals.

I think running the country will be a doddle for you.

Its a democracy, she can be a SAHM just like Dad can be a SAHD, its her choice what she calls herself. SAHP - if it stood for Stay at Home PARENT is fine too, its their choice.

I have diagnosed ADHD myself and wouldn’t dream of attempting to claim anything for this!

I was trying to not stray into emotional arguments (although I agree with you), but use cold hard logic.

If the OP declares valuing the social benefits of families having a stay at home mother (which I tentatively agree with, with caveats) then these two women provide exactly the same social benefit, but one of them is punished and another rewarded. And the differentiator is pretty much having a penis in the picture.

I think we can guess the answer to this.

Although the life of a SAHP never appealed to me, in principle I have nothing against voting for someone who has put their skills into homemaking, bringing up children and substantial community and volunteer engagement. I don’t like seeing SAHPs looked down on.

However such a political candidate would have to earn their wings, and demonstrate both the ability to do hard graft and a substantive understanding of the issues of the day. That’s before we even get to their politics. Enough said.

Yours is a very legitimate opinion. If enough people agree with you then they have as much right as anyone to have that view represented in parliament.

I didn’t vote reform but I find it very concerning how many on the far left want to silence those with political opinions they disagree with with.

Phew!

How old are your kids?

Have a rethink. Their main aim is to divide and conquer by blaming all problems on immigrants instead of greedy millionaires like Farage. (not saying that we should allow everyone to come here but they’re wrong to blame everything on immigrants).

So? Many other people have ADHD and many other mental health problems who do need help.
You don’t have to claim because you are financially provided for, you may feel differently if you weren’t.

Yes if their party adopted them as a candidate or they stood as a candidate and people voted for them.
But if they became an MP they would no longer be a stay at home mum. They would have to live in London 4 days a week, often working late in the night for evening votes and hold a surgery for constituents at the weekend.
It's not possible to be a full time carer for your children and be an MP.
It is probably easier to do if you are a local councillor

That said, I wouldn’t vote for you. It’s not the 1950s anymore and a tax break isn’t going to come anywhere close to making up for the loss of a salary. Having a SAHP (usually the woman, let’s face it) also has huge implications later on for access to jobs, career progression, pension, etc. Given that around 50% of marriages now end in divorce that’s a risk I would not be willing to take.

Well no, because you have a husband supporting your family financially and have no need to work so are not challenged by the issues which other women with a similar diagnosis have when they are trying to access the workplace and support their family.

I think you could use some real world experience of life without a cushty well-off husband before you start judging others and removing their benefits.

Still... a rock could probably get in as a Reform councillor given their vetting procedures, so you'll probably do fine.

While your personal beliefs would shape the party you’d want to represent, unless you’d been an MP for a number of years there’s no way as a back-bencher you’re actually going to be able to influence your party’s actual policies.

Join the party and volunteer if you feel that strongly about it.

You do realise that a woman who goes to work while her children are young isn’t just ‘paying for nursery’, right?

She’s paying her National Insurance contributions which mean she can claim a full state pension when she retires and isn’t reliant on her husband’s income.

She is bringing in her own income so if her relationship breaks down she can afford to fund her own life instead of relying on the state.

She is ensuring she has the means to escape abuse and brutality in her marriage, and to protect her children from them, too.

She is demonstrating to her children that women have all the choices their foremothers fought for and they have the right to choose any life they want.

She is paying taxes which increase the amount of money available to the state to pay for things we collectively agree as a society are a good thing (this one might be alien to you as a Reform sympathiser, but I can assure you that great swathes of the population do make decisions based on things other than their own pure self-interest).

So no, not just working to pay for nursery. I would expect someone wanting to contribute to running the country to have broader horizons and a bit more of an imagination than you’re currently displaying.

There may be massive benefits to the parent and children, but it would be a massive disadvantage to the Exchequer, to not only have loads of women leave the workforce (and thus not pay income tax) but to also then give their partner income tax breaks for it.
It will never happen.
Money trumps nebulous 'social good' every time.