A Tory speaks sense - or did she?
Oh look! The Tories have finally hit on the fact that, actually, MPs might need childcare because of their jobs.
Two days after the feminist left. Maybe they were persuaded? (hah…)
Note the essential difference between the two sides, however: one acknowledges that childcare is a worry for all working parents, the other doesn’t. Bagshawe correctly argues on CentreRight that MPs with children often require a nanny because of their job. She then fails entirely to make the jump from this entirely reasonable point to its logical conclusion, that working parents in general often have problems juggling their jobs and children. They can’t leave their children at home, and yet they need to go to work if they want to feed those children. If they can afford it, then there’s a simple answer: hire for a nanny or dump them in a nursery during the day.
But what if they can’t? Emplying someone all day every working day until a child is old enough to go to school can be prohibitively expensive. Anyone on a vaguely low-income won’t manage it, certainly - which leaves them with a few options. If both parents work, then one can drop out to look after the children for a while, at the expense of the family’s income and their long-term prospects. If it’s a single parent family, then that parent is forced either to drop out of work and function on benefits (which, surely, the Tories disapprove of?) or take low paid part-time jobs. In either case, the parent’s income will drop - and the child will unfairly suffer as a result.
The solution is surely simple, though. The state could heavily subsidise childcare with grants or tax-breaks on nurseries. Or, even better, it could open state-owned and run nurseries so that parents of any income had a guaranteed place where they could leave their child safe for the day without worrying about sinking into debt. And the benefits speak for themselves: the children get decent and reliable daycare, while parents can get out to full-time and support themselves, reducing unemployment and benefits expenditure.
Oh, and MPs wouldn’t need to claim nannies on expenses, as they could send them to the (free) state nursery.
Not for Bagshawe, it seems. At no stage in her piece does she remotely acknowledge that other parents might work long and difficult hours, and might benefit from state-funded childcare too, especially if they’re on low incomes. Possibly because she went to boarding school, Oxford and went on to be a successful novelist who can presumably afford childcare? Unless it’s simply by omission, she’s as guilty of classism in ignoring the needs of low-income parents as the journalists she fairly rages against are of sexism.
Oh - and she’s still guilty of sexism. Did you notice how she defended the rights of women MPs alone to childcare on expenses, implying that it’s naturally women who raise children? Which, of course, is sexist.
Oh - and she’s still guilty of sexism. Did you notice how she defended the rights of women MPs alone to childcare on expenses, implying that it’s naturally women who raise children? Which, of course, is sexist.
AND ALSO THE NATURAL ORDER, WITHOUT WHICH SOCIETY WOULD SURELY COLLA-
Seriously though. This would not be the only benefit the maternal partner obtains over paternal, in a form of state sponsored sex-based role enforcement that is seemingly swallowed without a whimper by anyone. Might I draw your attention to the amount of leave enjoyed by a mother as compared to a father?
But of course, business is all that matters. How foolish of me to forget. Which is why we have the most stable market in Europe along with the happiest people, of course…