Saturday, May 25, 2024
HomeKathy GyngellKathy Gyngell: Dave’s legacy. The ruination of motherhood

Kathy Gyngell: Dave’s legacy. The ruination of motherhood


So now we know. Stay-at-home-mums have impeded the great Cameron modernisation project. British politics, he said on Monday, has been constrained by the idea that helping parents with childcare costs penalises mothers who do not take a job.

Much has been written about Cameron’s legacy in the last few days, marking his ten years as Leader of the Conservative Party.

This, the most destructive aspect, however, has been missed. Mr Cameron will go down in history as the PM who successfully completed that huge social engineering project started by Labour – that of detaching babies and infants from their mothers.

He will be revealed in the course of history as the Prime Minister who fundamentally changed the nature of society, who denied babies and infants the full maternal care they need; who ‘disrespected’ and then casually destroyed that most fundamental of social bonds – the mother-child bond.

Like the wicked witch in Hansel and Gretel, he has built a modern version of the Gingerbread House and lured inside parents, children and wider society with false promises of safety and treats

He has destroyed the children’s breadcrumb trail to the safety of home while enticing their already brainwashed mothers into the illusory wonderful world of work – all because he and George think this is the route to greater national productivity. Believe me, it ain’t.

He will go down as the man who presided over the institutional devaluation of motherhood. Who needs Labour and Harriet Harman when we have Cameron and his so-called Conservative Party (that has apparently no interest in conserving anything) leading the State’s feminist charge towards the destruction of families and the family life?

So in thrall to this is Mr Cameron that he now actively defends this destructive stance. There is nothing unfair, he asserted in a speech yesterday, in using state funds to encourage women into work provocatively asking: “How does helping someone who wants to go to work hurt someone who wants to stay at home?”

Well we can tell him here at The Conservative Woman. As Laura Perrins told the Daily Mail on Monday, he must be dim if he does not get the basic economics.

What I wonder is needed to get them through his thick head?

What does he not understand?

A tax churn that goes in one direction? A £6.5 billion commitment to ‘hard working families’ (code for compliant two-earner families who are prepared or persuaded to download their childcare responsibility to a third party)? that many normal and good parents do not want his precious ‘wraparound childcare’?

They’d rather have cash and choice. How can he deny that single-earner couples with children already suffer a tax penalty compared with their dual-earning neighbours – even before they pay for another’s childcare?

I doubt, however, even if CARE’s latest research paper on the grossly inequitable taxation of families was put in front of his nose he would read it.

He might note that a distinguished former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, wrote its foreword.

But our Dave, like his Chancellor, George, thinks that opting to care for your children yourself is just a lifestyle choice – and a pretty self indulgent one at that that you can pay for if you chose to so stubbornly ignore what it is to be a ‘hard working’ family the Government endorses.

Why anyone calls Cameron a conservative beats me when he is so ready to undermine the most fundamental of conservative principles – freedom of choice. The freedom of choice he is so busily abusing in this case is the freedom of two parents to choose that one (mainly the mother) stays at home to care for the baby or children.

This Mr Cameron has made quite clear is no longer to be an option. In Cameron’s vision of modernity, the idea of conserving that most fundamental of bonds – that between mother and child – is immaterial if not an anathema.

Cameron’s Conservatives have remained doggedly impervious to stay at home (and would be stay at home) mothers’ demands for a fundamental re-evaluation of their critical role in meeting their children’s needs, of their worth to society.

I fear there will be a terrible price to pay for this in society. Mental health problems, already beyond the ability of the health service to deal with, will just get worse. And Cameron and Osborne will find their idea of how to boost productivity by pushing every mum into work will not have been so very clever after all.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.