Autumn

2014

Time to Love

elcome to this first

online newsletter.
I hope you find it encouraging
and valuable. In it we aim
to bring you up to date with
our campaigning profile
as well as offer you lots of
encouragement in your role
as a stay at home mother (or
father).
The media approach us regularly because
we offer a voice for that invisible group,
the non-working mother (or at least
the not-paid mother). We challenge
the political parties on their obsession
with returning mothers to work as soon
as possible. We argue that families
should be able to choose to look after
their babies and children themselves,
by removing the unfairness in the tax
system, which means that families where
a parent stays at home pay more tax than
a family where both parents work. We
also argue against the assumptions that
not only do all mothers want to return to
work as soon as possible, but that this is
whats best for their babies and children.
But Ill let you in on a secret. What
I dont say when interviewed, and what
I would love to be able to say without
upsetting working
mothers, is that
I am a stay
at home
mother
because
I

believe I am a better mother than I would

be if I worked. Its not that I love my
children any more than any working
mothers love theirs. Its that I have time
to show them that I love them and I have
time to let them be children.An article
in The Daily Express, (29.9.14) states, a
generation of children are leading sterile
lives without the fun of getting messy
making mud pies or rolling down hills
because their parents are too busy to clean
up. Two in three admit they discourage
their children from baking or playing
sport outside because they dont have time
to get them clean or do more washing, a
survey says. As a stay at home mother,
I can let my children, most of the time,
set the agenda, even if that means getting
messy.
I have time in the morning before
school to give them long hugs and linger
over breakfast doing their homework
with them. I have time to play (although
they just want to watch tv) when they get
home from school, because Ive been able
to do the washing, cleaning and cooking
during the school day. Well, not always,
but thats the theory. I have time to go to
all their school events. They can invite
their friends to tea and go to after-school
activities because I am around to host
their friends and can drive them to their
various activities. I have time in the
evening for a leisurely bathtime and lots
of time for stories. I am around when
they need me and when they dont. I feel
incredibly blessed to be able to give my
children the sort of childhood I want
them to have and to be the sort of mother
I want to be. And, although it definitely
isnt fashionable to say so, to be the sort
of supportive wife I want to be, although
my husband would say hes the one who
is supporting all I do.
This sense of fulfilment is surely
behind the headline in the Telegraph
(24.9.14) Stay-at-home-mothers have
the most worthwhile lives, taken from
the UKs national well-being index,

published
by the
Office for
National Statistics.
I do feel that my life is
worthwhile, because it is making all the
difference to my childrens happiness
and well-being. Thats not to say I
swan around the house batting away
unreasonable, ungrateful and rude
offspring with constantly patient and
suitably pacifying answers. I dont. My
stay-at-home-mothered children are
not noticeably better behaved than the
working-mothered children I know.
My input is not (yet) obvious through
their output. But Im confident they
are as good as they could possibly be. I
couldnt have been there for them more.
I couldnt have shown I loved them more.
Ive been able to be the sort of mother I
want to be, except not quite as patient!
Mothers at Home Matter campaigns
for families to be able to choose to
have a mother at home full time, or for
as much time as possible. We argue
against the assumption that parents are
interchangeable with professional, or
unprofessional, nursery or after-school
club workers, because we love our
children with a visceral love that no one
else can feel for them. We argue that
mothers are unique in the lives of their
children and that children need as much
of their mothers as possible to thrive.
But usually our interviewers just focus on
the economics and question of choice.
I hope this newsletter reaffirms your
conviction that by being a mother who is
there for your children you are carrying
out the most important and fulfilling role
in the world.
Claire Paye, Editor

From the Chair

Politics is the art of

preventing people from taking
part in affairs which properly
concern them.
(Paul Valery 1871-1945).

reflect on this quote on

the train home after
attending two meetings
with professionals who have
devoted their whole lives to a
deeper understanding of Early
Childhood.
Their inclusive approach, sitting
alongside parents like me at round-tables
in equal partnership, is welcomed. Some
work in health and education, others are
managers and researchers in their field.
I feel privileged to share views from the
invisible army of loving parents who are
often prevented from having their say.
Sadly weve yet to receive a
direct invitation from the political
establishment. Research establishments
and think-tanks regularly get asked
to contribute oral evidence to various
committees, but parent groups are
usually overlooked. If the truth be told,
if we attend a policy meeting (and we
often do) politicians look surprised to see
us, as if were intruders! Dont we belong
at home?! As implied by the quote
above its as if childrens care, health and
education is a concern for professionals
only, and parents are mostly excluded.
Invisible.
It all seems to happen behind closed
doors. Conferences on childhood
policies, networking, exhibitions,
lectures, consultations, launch of a new
piece of research...not a parent in sight.
And tickets are ludicrously expensive.
We also know how difficult it is for
mothers and fathers to juggle meetings
around the school day, or feeding and
caring for younger children. The expense
involved in travelling to London is
impossible for most of us to contemplate.
No wonder the new group Parents
Want a Say chose that name! They
campaign to reverse the amendment
to the term-time holiday rule and
hefty fines which prevent parents from
taking children to a family wedding or
taking advantage of wider educational
opportunities outside school.
Parents are fed up of having their
contribution to childrens education
overlooked. Politicians assure us they

listen to parents views door to door,

and most particularly that mothers tell
them they want more free childcare.
But how reliable is this? If you had
a baby in your arms and you
were faced with a suit at the
door carrying a folder, would
you be strong enough to
say you prefer to look after
your children at home? Or
would you be influenced
by language claiming that
children need socialisation and
that mothers have a duty to contribute
to the economy? In actual fact research
by the DfE shows that parents have a
strong preference to care themselves, and
theyll say so if asked the right questions,
with sensitivity. Theres worryingly little
research on the impact of premature
separation on the mental and physical
health of some mothers forced to make
decisions they
arent happy
with.

Fortunately
outside the
Westminster bubble the Early Sector
is a natural ally of parents, focusing as
they do on the day to day happiness and
care of little ones as far as systems and
staff ratios allow. I know this because
quite late in life Ive been proud to put
my Early Years Professional certificate
on our kitchen wall and have spent
some time with practitioners. Although
burdened by paperwork, policies and
procedures, their main priority and the
main reward for the work they do - is to
see a child smile and see them grow in
confidence, if possible at their own pace.
But its getting more challenging as
theyre now expected to take increasing
numbers of babies and 2 year olds,

long before theyre confident with potty

training or can express themselves fully.
In an ideal world the EY sector would
like shorter hours of childcare, and for
children to have plenty of family time.
They know parents are special people in
childrens lives.
On the train (I learn a lot on the train!)
I met one practitioner a storyteller. She
refers to parents as Invisible Treasure
to be cherished. As Claire Paye says on
the front cover, all parents love their
children. Most mothers and fathers
do all they can to be treasure boxes for
childrens play, stories, opportunities,
experiences but all this takes time,
unhurried time.
Sometimes people who care for
children - parents, grandparents and
early years settings, all seem to be
competing for resources. I attended
a Grandparents conference recently.
Theres a call for recognition through
pension credits or home care allowances
as in Finland. But in Finland,
crucially, home care allowances
are also offered to the parent.
If taxpayer-funded resources
are offered to any care
provider, except the parent,
then wheres the choice?
Parents also carry costs,
equivalent to the second
salary forfeited to provide
care.
In this pre-election
period its so important that
early childhood isnt used
as a political football to score
points or win votes. We call on
policymakers to join with practitioners
and parents for more cross-party
collaboration, less short-termism and
a more multi-disciplinary approach,
thinking outside-the-box, for example
including experts in Housing Policy.
Some people like Sir Denis Pereira Gray
from WATCh? have called for a Royal
Commission. This is an idea worth
exploring.
In the meantime if any politician
comes canvassing to my door Ill make
them read all the wonderful stories sent
by parents who want policymakers to
focus more on supporting family life.
And Ill remind them of the value of
invisible unpaid care to our economy.

Marie Peacock

MAHM - Political and Media Update

In the run up to the General
Election, Labour has no
excuse not to know about
MAHM! One of our media
representatives, Imogen
Thompson, takes on the
Labour Party leader
and fights our corner
at the Labour Party
Conference in
Manchester.
A Run In with Ed
Miliband

ts been a busy couple

of months, not only for
the various political parties but
also for Mothers at Home Matter.
As a campaigning organisation we
regularly challenge political policies
throughout the year; whenever public
meetings are held, letters are written
and opportunities to discuss policies
arise. It happened to be the Labour
party that monopolised my time in
the recent weeks. It all started when I
apparently caused a media storm by
doing a Paxman on Labour leader Ed
Miliband during his first live phone-in
on LBC Radio in August.
I was keen to give Mr Miliband the
opportunity to counter the unfair
policies that have been introduced
by the current coalition government.
Would Labour do anything differently
if elected in 2015? It was clear from
Mr Milibands answers that his views
are exactly the same as Mr Camerons
and Mr Cleggs. He could offer no
solution or indeed any willingness to
reverse current policies.
The presenter of the show Iain
Dale and I both offered Mr Miliband
options to support all families fairly
in their childcare choices. These
ideas were rejected without any
acknowledgement that parental choice
is important in raising children and
every family will face a different
challenge in balancing work and care.
There is no money to help parents
at home, he answered. Yet within one
month it was announced that Labour
will increase the free hours of preschool education for in-work parents.
The reaction in the media was
instant. Within minutes of my

question being posed, I took five

further calls one after the other,
including one from LBC inviting me
back on to discuss my reaction to Mr
Milibands answers later that evening.
Within the hour the headlines were
hitting the online news sites, and
Mothers at Home Matters
name was showing up
in articles in local and
national press and even
being discussed in
international forums.
As much as the
coverage for Mothers at
Home Matter was great,
there was an element of
surprise from the media that
a mum could challenge the Leader
of the Opposition. It was as if being
at home with the children, I was
somehow removed from the debate
on childcare and less qualified to
comment.
In fact, it is families like mine
that are reminded how our finances
are being squeezed by the various
so-called family-friendly policies,
often on a daily basis! I may be just
a mum in the eyes of the politicians
and reporters, but wouldnt it be great
to think that MPs could include us
in their planning meetings to clarify
what impact proposed policies have on
family life before implementing them
in order to have a truly fair family
test for everyone?

Labour Party Conference

With this latest exchange of views

with Ed Miliband in mind, I attended
three fringe meetings that took
place conveniently on my doorstep
at the Labour Party Conference in
Manchester. All three events were
panel discussions, two on the topic
of universal childcare and the third
discussing if there was still a womens
vote that needed winning.
The first two included the Shadow
Minister for Children and Childcare,
Lucy Powell, who set out the steps
Labour is taking towards universal
childcare free childcare for all
children aged upwards of two years
and argued how Labour would
help families with the costs, initially
by increasing the present pre-school
education offer up to 25 hours to
families in which all adults worked.

By the second
event I was being introduced as
someone who may have a lot to say
on the aspects (or lack of!) support
for stay at home parents this despite
being merely an audience member.
On each occasion I put the case to the
panel and challenged the Labour party
to be the first political party to put
forward fairer policies that accounted
for parental choice, to value the unpaid
care that parents at home do and to
understand that all families are facing
increased costs. I also demonstrated
that genuinely family friendly tax
and allowance systems would help all
families whether both parents worked
in paid employment or one parent
cared for their children.
Interestingly, during the final event
about the womens vote, the panel
used key words and phrases such
as leadership, women are often
ignored, they have the burden of
care, and policies must represent
women. I pointed out that all these
topics are important to women that
cared at home too. Just because
mothers are not in paid employment
it does not mean that they are not
leaders (of running their households,
of voluntary/interest groups, of
playgroups, of charity events), that
women at home are constantly being
ignored by policy makers, and why is
caring always regarded as a burden
when many women wish positively to
perform this role for their loved ones?
Above all, policies must represent ALL
womens choices at present they do
not!
Will anything come of our
participation at these events?
Only time will tell, but I suspect if
Mothers at Home Matter hadnt been
represented at any of the meetings, the
reference to parents caring for their
own children would not even have
been considered. Hopefully, I may
have given the panellists, delegates
and audience members something to
consider at least

STOP PRESS

This extract is taken from a

report published at a recent
conference, and reveals the
latest figures on the free
nursery places policy:
The number of mothers whose
youngest child was aged three and who
were in work increased from 53% to
56% - equating to an additional 12,000
women in work, most of whom were
moving into part-time posts of less
than 30 hours a week. [ie often not
earning over the personal allowance
and therefore not contributing any tax]
The IFS study found that this meant
the policy [free nursery places for 3
year olds] was costing 65,000 for
each extra person helped into work,
which it described as a very expensive
employment policy.
Mike Brewer, IFS research fellow
and professor of economics at
the University of Essex, said: In
recent months, Labour, the Liberal
Democrats and the Scottish National
Party have all promised to spend
additional money to extend the free
entitlement to early education.
Our results suggest that the current
approach is improving - but by no
means transforming - the labour
market attachment of mothers of
young children. The expansion of free
early education in the 2000s was a very
expensive way to move an additional
12,000 mothers into the labour force,
and the case for extending the free
entitlement is not as clear-cut as
political rhetoric might suggest.
A more open and honest debate
about the rationale for these policies,
and whether the evidence supports
these positions, would be welcome.

Cross-stitch by Kerry Hedley

MAHM at the Lib Dem Conference

MAHM Vice-Chair, Anne

Fennell, was invited this
year to represent Mothers at
Home Matter at the Women
Liberal Democrat (WLD)
fringe meeting at the Liberal
Democrat Conference in
Glasgow.

lizabeth Jewkes, Chair of Policy

for WLD, had come to our fringe
meeting last year on fairer family
taxation, and invited me to join two
other panelists to put the case for how
the Liberal Democrats could support
parents to make choices about childcare,
whether they stay at home or go to work.
I presented the case that fewer and
fewer parents and in particular mothers
were able to make the choice to stay at
home to raise their children. Successive
government policies had encouraged
women back into the workplace and
economic conditions were stacked
against the family model where one
parent stayed at home to care for
the children while the other parent
supported the family financially.
I looked at how our tax system traps
40% of all families in a tax trap where
to earn more money sees a reduction in
tax credits so that overall income hardly
increases for the single earner. Since
child benefit has been removed, the same
situation faces the higher earner. For
many families the only way to increase
the income of the family significantly is
to send the mother out to work.
Our tax system is almost alone in not
recognizing either the household income
or the number of dependents on that
income. It has led to the impoverishment
of the single earner family and the
drive for mothers to get back into work
as the route out of poverty, along with
the clamour for affordable childcare to
enable mothers to do so.
But no party is tackling the injustices
that force the mother away from the
family in the first place, or asking
whether it meets the needs of very young
children, or whether it was what mothers
wanted.
I presented to the Liberal Democrats
the opportunity to set themselves apart
from the other political parties and offer
choice, equality and fairness. It was not
right that the State interfered in this

way and discriminated

against certain types of families.
It denied aspiration and fulfillment. It
denied families the right to follow their
own conscience and to live their lives
according to what they believe is the
right thing to do, not what the State
dictates is the right thing.
The opportunity was there to value
the contribution of the stay at home
mother as equal to that of the mother
going out to work. The affordability of
parents to care for their children should
be given equal weight in the debate about
affordable childcare. Child benefit should
be removed in a fair way and we need
to start to remove the causes of the high
marginal rates and the disadvantages of
an individual tax system.
We need to start from the principle
that in economic policy the family
should be the basic unit for economic
consideration. In matters relating to the
family the family or household income
must be taken into account.
The speech went down very well and
there was an acknowledgment that the
work done in the home was not valued,
that raising children is an important job
and that a fairer family taxation system
is needed.
The conference is as much about
lobbying MPs and making contacts as it
is giving talks and attending meetings.
MAHM totally dominated the debate on
What Women Want see the Daily Mail
article on the subject.
I spoke to many MPs, most of whom I
bumped into in the corridors including
Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, Steve
Webb (Minister for Pensions), and
Jo Swinson ( Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State for Employment
relations, consumer and postal affairs,
also a junior Equalities Minister.)
By the end of the conference Jo
Swinson spoke about the possibility
of the Lib Dems framing a policy to
support stay at home parents. She offered
Elizabeth Jewkes access to the Treasury
to cost out a proposal for support for
families where a parent stays at home to
raise their family. Elizabeth is currently
submitting a policy proposal.
At the end of January MAHM will be
launching a booklet on Fairer Family
Taxation at the House of Commons. We
will keep you informed on the progress.

Teenagers and Me Time

Our children are allconsuming when theyre
babies, but blink and theyre
starting school, and next thing
you know theyre turning
into teenagers. Mel Tibbs,
writer and MAHM
contributor and
supporter, has
written this
blog on the
subject.

on Snow and
I used to have a
great relationship.
Every evening at 7pm
sharp Id be there, alone in his
presence, hanging on his every word,
perhaps a cool glass of wine in my
hand, maybe even a bowl of crisps. Id
listen to him speak seriously, but never
patronisingly, about the events of the
day; hed discuss matters with the
people on the ground who counted;
there might be a little studio banter
with his colleagues who often joined
us. Id spend a full hour listening to
him before my thoughts turned to
dinner with my husband.
But then things changed, I had to
start getting my Jon Snow fix a little
later, finding him instead at 8pm, just
as willing to speak about the pressing
matters of the world, but by the time
hed finished it was 9pm and there
just didnt seem to be much of the
evening left. And now? Well, now I
seldom make it to see Jon even at 8.
Somethings come between us and I
know exactly what it is: teenagers.
Long gone are the days when tea was
at 5pm, a bath at 6:15, pyjamas at 6:45,
a couple of story books (certain longer
passages condensed for efficiency if
necessary), and all three children were
off to sleep by 7pm. No, now things
are relatively quiet til 6pm; each
occupied with their own activities
before some belly alarm goes off and
suddenly theyre all starving. We all
eat together as a family, then theres
some music practice or homework
to be enforced, and bedtime for the
youngest one begins. Once hes sorted
by 8pm, I turn around and the lanky
teenagers I have hardly seen all day

are in need of my attention, or

worse still: theyre not. If theyre
entirely closeted away with
electronics or nursing a foul
mood, speciality of the young and
powerless, I make it my business
to seek them out, disconnect them
from the electronics (this is enforced
at 8:30pm and I remain vigilant in
order not to miss the deadline)
and try to generate some form of
civilised conversation.
By the time thats all done its
easily 9 or 10pm and Jon Snow
is long gone, nowhere to be seen
on Channel 4 nor 4+1. Im left
with Fiona Bruce and her hateful
head-nodding at 10pm on the BBC;
a news programme I find lamentable
on those few occasions I can actually
keep my own eyes open at that time.
Newsnight is for absolute night owls
as far as Im concerned, and Paxmans
sarcasm was always entertaining for a
while but not a patch on Jons eclectic
tie collection.
What Ive accepted is that the off
switch which young children have,
essential for every parents sanity,
gradually becomes less effective.
Children who are in your care all
day are ready for their beds early
and your time can begin. But when
theyre at school, busy with friends,
or studying alone until late in the
evening, your children become
people you miss all day and want
to spend some time with. Time for
yourself inevitably shifts forward to
the daytime. It might be that at this
stage going out to work fills the time
for myself brief, and that you return
home invigorated, restored and ready
to parent, but it could also be that
having to work for financial reasons
or feeling under pressure to return to
work as soon as your children reach
some arbitrary bench mark (starting
primary school, starting secondary
school) you return home frazzled and
short tempered. Perhaps its a mixture
of both. The fact remains that children
still need you, and, just as you did
when they were tiny, you make small
sacrifices of your own time, interests
and needs, in order to meet theirs.
There is no one time when your
children stop needing you. Im
turning a blind eye to all the reports

in the media that theres a new

generation of offspring who actually
return home for the long term after
having lived away during university
years for the time being. At least while
theyre under the age of majority,
your children need you equally as
much at the age of fourteen as they
did at fourteen months. As they
grow away from you emotionally
and intellectually, you never know
when they might be feeling receptive,
actually interested for once in a
conversation with you; you need to
seize every opportunity like that
which arises. Before too long you
know theyll have gone. Ive recently
stayed up late with one child debating
the relevance of further education
and merits of world travel and
with another one on a spontaneous
bedroom-reorganisation project with
the aim of freeing up some desk space
which lasted until half past 10 at night.
Unpredicted but essential encounters
with these growing individuals.
They may try to convince you that
what they want is money and freedom,
but what young people need is time.
Just like they did when they were they
were babies, toddlers and primary
school children.
So for now my days of watching the
full hour of the Channel Four news,
the strains of whose theme tune still
transport me back to the days when
7pm signalled the end to chaos and
toys and noise, are long gone. I fully
intend to resume my relationship with
Jon when I get the opportunity. In the
meantime our meetings are brief and
I dont give him the full attention I
really should, but heres hoping that
theres a future for us yet.

What your Local MP Needs to Know...

The election is fast
approaching and it is a brilliant
time for mothers at home to
have their voices heard, so
that policies can be formed
which will support single
income families.

Ps are elected to represent the

views of their constituents and
therefore are keen to adopt policies that
would be supported by their constituents.
Mothers at Home Matter are in close
contact with a number of MPs who
support the idea that families should be
able to choose to have a parent at home
full time. However, MPs dont always
have the information they need to be able
to help us lobby to change the tax system
to make this choice a possibility for more
families.
Please consider setting up an
appointment to see your local MP in
his or her surgery, and also take time
to lobby potential candidates who may
be door knocking in the run up to the
election. I generally say I would vote
for any party which makes it easier for
families to choose to have a parent at
home full time, knowing that currently
this is not a priority for any political
parties.
I met with my MP over the summer
and put the following points to him.
Please feel free to use them yourself.
My MP was (and I suggest yours might
be) interested in what might appeal to
women voters and what the costs of our
proposals are.

Women voters

Figures show that not all women are

desperate to return to work ASAP after
giving birth, for as many hours a week
as possible, despite what the politicians
seem to think. And not all mothers
would work if only childcare were
cheaper:
71% of mothers at home full time are
there by choice, ie throwing money at
childcare wont make any difference
to them. This is according to the
Governments own Department of
Education study published in Jan 2014.
According to a recent Netmums
survey, 88% of those working full time
would rather work part time or stay at
home full time. So, a policy which makes
it easier for mothers to spend more time

rather than less with their babies and

children should win the female vote, and
possibly male voters who would like their
children to be raised by a parent at home
full time.

Why support working mothers

above stay at home mothers?

One reason the Government pours

billions into encouraging mothers to
go out to work is because the Treasury
identifies new mothers returning to
work, as well as the rise in paid childcare
as representing economic growth. At
no point is the Government suggesting
mothers should work because their
children will be much better off when
separated from their mothers, except in
the most extreme cases.
Working mothers is an economic
policy, not a family friendly policy.
Stay at home mothers are simply seen
as economically inactive. Ironically,
there is no recognition that what is
seen as growth is just a transfer from
the informal, domestic economy to the
formal, traded economy.
They also think helping with the costs
of childcare will win the votes of working
mothers, but is that the case? Does it
make good financial sense to continue
with this policy? Does subsidising
childcare really make a difference to
whether mothers work or not? And
is subsidised childcare really all that
mothers want?
Where mothers want to work to
maintain their careers, they will continue
to do so whether they have help with
childcare or not. Where mothers have
to work to earn an extra income, they
may well appreciate more help to stay at
home with their children for more hours
every week, rather than be supported
to be working out of the home. So the
Government is financially supporting
either mothers who dont need the help
because they earn enough and enjoy their
jobs enough to continue regardless, or
mothers who would rather have financial
support to spend more time with their
children. It doesnt make sense.

Costs of supporting mothers at

home vs mothers at work

The Government currently spends

billions on supporting working mothers
through free childcare, the subsidising of
nursery places, and tax credits. A figure
of 7bn is quoted, although its apparent
no one really knows. The real cost

should
include
the tax credits given to top up the low
incomes of many childcare workers and
take account of the Governments plans
to employ, rightly, more highly skilled
professionals, who will require higher
wages. The cost of replacement care, ie
paying people other than the parents to
look after their children, is often more
than a working mother would contribute
in tax revenues, particularly where a
mother has more than one child in
childcare.
The cost of supporting mothers
at home, or, rather, removing the
penalisation of single income families
in the tax system and establishing a true
element of choice, is around 2.4bn. In
other words, a fully transferable tax
allowance at the basic rate for married
couples with dependent children would
cost 2.4bn. This is less than half the
5bn cost of David Camerons proposed
increase in the personal allowance
to 12,500, backed by Nick Clegg.
Increasing the personal allowance doesnt
take account of family responsibilities
at all and further discriminates against
single income families, who cant
access both personal tax allowances.
The Transferable Tax Allowance could
equally be applied to unmarried couples.
Although relatively cheap for the
Government to introduce, a Transferable
Tax Allowance scheme would make a
big difference to families. A tax free
allowance of 10,000, if transferred to the
working partner, would save the family
2000 a year or 167 a month, which is
the equivalent of 25 hours a month on
the basic wage and would effectively
double Child Benefit for families with
two dependent children. If the working
partner falls into the higher rate tax
threshold, which is not uncommon given
how relatively low the threshold is, the
transferable tax allowance will save the
family up to 4000 a year, which is not
far off what a working mother may earn
on part time hours. Therefore,
the Transferable Tax Allowance could

effectively replace the mothers wage and

would give families a real choice whether
both parents work and pay others to look
after their children, subsidised by the
Government, or whether they choose
to have a parent at home, raising their
children themselves.
Mothers at Home Matter would
also like to see the introduction of
the transferable tax allowance for the
unused part of a working mothers
income. Many working mothers earn far
below the 10,000 (possibly increasing
to 12,500) personal tax allowance. A
Transferable Tax Allowance applying
to the amount of the tax allowance not
used would therefore appeal to working
mothers as well as stay at home mothers.
Finally, we would also support an
additional personal allowance for single
parents, as they would be unable to
qualify for a transferable tax allowance.

The message for your MP is simple:

The Government spends a fortune

trying to encourage mothers to
work.Not all mothers want to work,
or to work additional hours.
Many mothers have to work
because single income families pay
a disproportionate amount of the
family income in tax.
Many mothers (women voters)
would like to be at home with their
children more.
A Transferable Tax Allowance
(TTA) would be relatively cheap to
introduce and would give families
a real choice as to how to bring up
their children.
A Transferable Tax Allowance
applied to the unused Personal
Allowance would help working
mothers.
Therefore, TTAs would save the
Government money due to reduced
take up of childcare places and could
win votes from both stay at home
mothers and working mothers.
The TTA addresses the unfair
discrimination in the tax system
against single income families and
recognises the costs of raising the
children who will contribute to the
pensions pot and tax burdens of
future governments. Surely thats a
message any MP or candidate would
welcome.
by Claire Paye

What IS Family Friendly Policy?

What is Family Friendly?

So far, almost all Government
initiatives have aimed to make
it easier for mothers to leave
their children with someone
else so they can go to work.
Our editor, Claire Paye, looks
into it.

here are many reasons mothers work,

including the fact that housing is
so expensive, not helped by punitive
stamp duty rates; the fact that a family
on a single income pays significantly
more household tax than families on
two incomes; and the fact that the only
support families ever receive is tax breaks
to pay for childcare.
These are all as a result of deliberate
Government policies. Furthermore,
where additional money is found, it is
directed towards replacing parental care
with the State.
The Lib Dems are particularly
focused on removing parental
involvement with their
children. Free school
meals for Infants is
an example. Nick
Clegg feels that
the homemade
sandwiches and
fruit I send in for
my children to
eat are so terrible
that our taxes
should pay for my
children to have
school-cooked meals
(not quite as nutritious
as the caterers like to think)
followed by puddings, at the
expense of playtime and the loss of the
school hall for lunchtime activities.
Or take the latest proposal to bring
in 15 hours of free Pre School for two
year olds. The assumption is that all two
olds will benefit from being separated
from their mothers, or fathers, to spend
15 hours a week being looked after by
others. Some may benefit, some wont
be ready. Their speech is not sufficiently
developed to communicate well.
A 24 month old toddler is very
different in developmental terms to a 36
month old child. Just because a three
year old benefits from Pre School, it
doesnt mean a two year old will. The

policy is purely to put

cash in the pockets of
working parents. The Lib
Dems even want to bring in 20 hours
of free childcare for all children for the
age of nine months, where both parents
work. They would like to fund this by
scrapping the one nod towards the value
of strong parental relationships, the
marriage tax allowance. Nevertheless,
David Cameron would like to try to
bring in a family friendly perspective,
which Mothers at Home Matter
applauds.
His comments, as he launched the
proposal, could have come from our
website:
Long before you get to the welfare
state, it is family that is there to care
for you when you are sick or when you
fall on tough times. Its family that
brings up children, teaches values,
passes on knowledge, instils in us all the
responsibility to be good citizens and
to live in harmony with others.
For someone who believes
in building a stronger
society from the bottom
up, there is no better
place to start than
with family. I want
every government
department to be
held to account for
the impact of their
policies on the
family. The reality
is that in the past
the family just hasnt
been central to the way
government thinks. So
you get a whole raft of policy
decisions which take no account of the
family and sometimes make these things
worse.
David Camerons sentiments are very
welcome but we look forward to seeing
the detail. Most policies are currently
focused on the financial needs of families
and none on their emotional needs.
Children are being deprived of the love
and time of possibly the most important
person in the world to them, their
mothers.
So here is the Mothers at Home Matter
family friendly policy suggestion: Does
this policy allow families to spend more
time together?

Viewpoints

MAHMs website is a crucial

platform for our work. The
Viewpoints section is where
members and supporters can
discuss a wide range of issues
which impact on the politics
of the family. Below are some
examples of articles, which
will be published in full online.
An Act of Craftivism - by Kerry
Hedley

This Saturday I took a piece of my

embroidery to the Feminism in London
conference. I guess it could be called an
act of craftivism & I was headed for the
Mothers at Home Matter stall. Sound
strange? It was strange to me too until a
few weeks ago.
Earlier this month I went to the
Knitting & Stitching Show at Alexandra
Palace. As an avid knitter Ive been to
this event before but this time there
was a workshop taking place there that
caught my eye. It was run by Craftivist
Collective, an organisation that promotes
craft for activism. Having recently seen
the Disobedient Objects exhibition
at the V&A which focuses on the role
that design, arts & crafts have played in
political dissent over history, the idea
of being able to be a part of something
like this myself really appealed to me.
Could I in some way become part of that
tradition?

Sex Education in the Home - by

Louise Kirk

It has always seemed to me that it is

core to the work of MAHM, as an
organisation and as individuals, that we
look not just to the present generation of
mothers but to the next as well. It may
have been difficult for us to stay at home
for our children, but how much more
for the young today, who are blasted on
every side with messages to the contrary.
Much of this they will encounter at
school, in sex education and careers
advice whose tenor is to indulge sexual,
but not family, desire: the innate longing
which all of us have for permanent
commitments is pushed behind prestige
in the workplace. This is especially
difficult for girls who have what I
think of as a creative tension between
wanting to make use of their talents as
an individual, and wanting to bring up a
family.

Grandmothers Letters
Mothering was Never Boring

Dear MAHM,
How glad I was to attend the AGM at
the end of the year. I am a mother of 5,
grandmother of 7 so far. At the age of
21 when I married I had no thought of
a family, no passion for babies. Within
2 years the first was born and so began
the best adventure I could dream of
thank God for all those chemicals and
responses stimulated by simply bearing
and giving birth
May I illustrate the tools of engagement
in child-rearing and making a family, as
I see it? We could for example, on our
daily, totally free, health-giving walk
outside make use of botany, zoology,
biology, geology, geography; in the town:
architecture, Latin, orienteering, crowdawareness; when free-playing in or out:
body control (we had lots of First Aid!),
patience, self-control, perseverance.
At reading time: literature, poetry,
imagining, drawing and writing; on
weekly shopping trips: maths, planning,
helping; and overriding all these
activities, LOVE being loveable and
free to love.
Boring it could never be every
mother can use the skills she has been
given or learnt.
Yours sincerely, Pepi Hughes, Dorset

A Letter to David Cameron

Dear Mr Cameron,
This morning I was incensed when
I heard that you are to give 2000 to
working parents for the upkeep of their
children. What happened to the promise
to give help to non-working mothers
(or fathers) who stay at home to bring
up their children in a loving home with
the security that a young child needs to
become a well-rounded adult? Money
isnt everything, and we can see, over
the years, how teenagers have become
unruly and parents cant control them. I
thought that you had realised that these
countries who have farmed out their
children to nurseries and non-family
supervision have reaped more neurotic
and undisciplined children.
Families who have not got large
incomes and spend all their time
earning, but cant afford nannies and
domestic help, are chasing their tails to
get all the work done and do not have the
time necessary to develop a loving,
caring relationship with the child. Also

when
brought up
outside the
home they have other peoples discipline,
which may not be of the standard the
parent would expect.
Yours sincerely, Mrs S.A. Shippey

The Benefits of Home Mothering

I am a 67 year old Granny, and was

delighted to read in the Daily Mail this
morning (shame it couldnt be in a more
prominent position in the paper) about
Mothers at Home Matter.
I had my two children, a girl and a boy,
in the 70s, and stayed at home with them
during their entire childhood. I chose
to do this as I believed that this would
give them the best start in life, and I still
believe that this was the right thing to do.
I found that this decision to stay at
home was even at that time ridiculed by
most of my friends, even though most of
them could have afforded to stay at home
too, but chose not to. My husband and I
were comfortably off, and I did not need
to work to keep food on the table, but my
decision to stay at home meant we were
always careful with our spending, always
holidaying in the UK, and very happy
holidays they were too, spending hours
on the beach, cycling, walking (even in
the rain!) playing games together, both
inside and out and all costing very little!
My husband worked very hard and long
hours, but we still found time to spend
many happy hours together with our
children.
One of the benefits of my decision to
stay at home was that I found myself
to be completely fulfilled by the role I
chose, very much enjoyed helping my
children with all manner of learning,
had the free time to help run the PTAs
at my childrens schools, took part in
village life, and generally contributed
to our local community. This all sounds
very goody goody but I dont mean it
to sound so. I really did ENJOY my life
then, and still do.
A happy, fulfilled grandmother

Book Review

The Turning:
Why the State of the Family
Matters, and what the World
can do about it
by Richard and Linda Eyre
Published by Familius

ichard and Linda Eyre are a

formidable American husband
and wife team; as well as raising nine
children they have co-authored over 40
books on subjects relating to family life,
parenting and raising children. In this
book they bring together their expertise
as well as their practical experience.
MAHMs campaign to raise the status
of mothers and give them a viable choice
to stay at home when their children are
young is assumed in its pages. But their
perspective is much wider: to protect
the model of the traditional family
from all the ways it is currently being
undermined by society. This should not
be seen as innate conservatism or as
undermining successful single parents so
much as their conviction, from all their
research on the subject, that parenting by
fathers and mothers within marriage has
proved to be the most stable and healthy
environment for children to grow and
flourish.
I should add that the Eyres approach
the whole subject from a religious
perspective. Although they do not state
their own church or denomination, their

Their
outlook is clearly Judaeo-Christian and
purpose
the meaning behind the title of their
is not to
book comes from a quotation from the
Old Testament prophet, Malachi: Unless
preach
we turn our hearts to our families, the
to other
whole earth will be cursed. The implicit
parents but
assumption behind the book is that the
to offer practical
traditional, natural family is ordained
advice from their own
by God; thus, they do not discuss recent
experience. Communication, they insist,
governmental redefinitions of marriage
is essential: talking to your children,
and family relationships. Having said
listening to them, asking them about
this I should emphasise that what the
their day, using car trips and meal times
Eyres have to say is relevant to all parents
to foster conversation; giving them
who want to build a stronger family life
quantity time, not quality time.
and who feel they are swimming against
They suggest parents teach their
the tide of modern trends in society.
children to be critical of the media;
The first part of their book describes
to make sure that computers are kept
why and how families today are weaker
in the living room; to cultivate good
than in the past. They list divorce, cosurrogates and role models whom older
habitation, the rise of single parenthood,
children can turn to; to practise family
falling birth rates, fatherless homes and
traditions and celebrations and so on.
women going out to work, as ways in
Having involved their own children in
which traditional family life has been
volunteering projects around the world,
undermined. The results in the US, as
they recommend this practice, writing
they demonstrate from statistics, speak
There is nothing quite like volunteering
for themselves: among other things, an
as a family to help foster unity and
increase in gun crime, pornography,
generosity.
alcoholism, eating disorders and suicide.
The Eyres do not believe that families
A similar pattern of social malaise and
can survive on their own and have
resulting state intervention can be seen
long campaigned for outside support;
in the UK.
The second part of the Eyres book may
they believe that businesses, banks,
be of greater interest to readers because it
schools, churches, the media and other
is concerned with positive ways
organisations should aim to strengthen
in which families can
families rather than undermine
combat the negative
them. In an appendix they
features of society.
we must
include sample letters that
Pointing out that
could be sent to such
create cultures in
strong families
institutions and which make
our own homes that are
are based on
an eloquent case for their
values, such as
cooperation. Indeed, they
stronger than the ... peer
commitment,
bring a missionary zeal to
cultures that swirl
fidelity,
their plea for a Coalition for
honesty, loyalty,
around us.
Strong Families, that would
discipline, love,
bring together all existing familyself-reliance, respect
type associations in order to bring
and unselfishness, they are
pressure on governments to formulate
convinced we must create cultures in
more family-friendly policies.
our own homes that are stronger than
A brief review cannot cover all the
the media, internet, materialism and peer
thought-provoking
ideas and issues this
cultures that swirl around us. They are
book raises; there is simply too much to
critical of tax laws that penalise married
absorb, digest and ponder. I strongly
couples and laws that make it cheaper to
recommend it to all MAHM readers. The
find daycare than to have maternity leave
Eyres have a website: ValuesParenting.
and nurture the child.
com (and one of their daughters also
Some of the best parts of the book are
helps to run another: Power of Moms)
the italicised sections where the Eyres
where details of the book can be
describe the problems they faced raising
obtained.
their own nine children and how, by trial
Francis Phillips
and error, they found creative solutions.

In the News

MAHM keeps up to date

with the coverage of matters
relating to mothers at home in
the media. Here is a round-up
of the latest news.
The Independent, 8 Oct 2014, Jane
Merrick,
Stop maligning stay at home mothers.
Instead, lets throw some cash at them
Theres an army of millions that supports
the state but is neglected by it. While
it is fantastic that women like me can
navigate the 21st century workplace
using flexible hours, state-subsidised
childcare, after-school clubs and, from
next April, shared parental leave.this
should not be the only game in town
worth investing government money in.
For the 2m stay-at-home parents,
it might be easy to dismiss their
contribution to GDP after all, some
may say, why should they be paid for
looking after their own children? But
when you consider how little they take
from the state, besides child benefit,
compared to their contribution to society
not just in savings in state-funded
childcare but all those voluntary hours
they put in at schools and the local
community they have a net worth.
Stay-at-home mothers are
patronisingly typecast (and therefore
dismissed by westminster) as Mumsnetlurking, middle-class, schoolgatelingerers harking back to a 1950s Britain.
But the increasingly vocal campaign
group Mothers at Home Matter points
out that its members are from a range of
backgrounds and incomes with diverse
reasons for not going to work.
The Telegraph, 24 Sept 2014, John
Bingham
Stay-at-home mothers have the most
worthwhile lives
Official well-being index shows those
who do not work because they are caring
for children or loved-ones have strongest
belief that their life is worthwhile
Mothers who have put their career
aside to care for their children have
a stronger sense that their lives are
worthwhile than the rest of society,
official figures suggest. (The Office for
National Statistics).
New findings from the UKs national
well-being index show that those

10

classed as economically inactive because

they are caring for a family or home are
also among the happiest people in Britain
The Telegraph, 27 Sept 2014, John
Bingham
Pressure to be professional parents
driving middle class mothers to
exhaustion
Middle class mothers are driving
themselves to exhaustion trying to
hold down jobs while facing a growing
obligation to ensure their children attend
extra-curricular activities every day of
the week, a new study warns.
Fears that it will be harder for the
next generations to enjoy the lifestyle
of their parents because of unaffordable
property prices and the fact that a degree
no longer guarantees a job are driving
parents to ever more desperate measures
to ensure they get ahead, it concludes.
But the study by social scientists at
Loughborough University identifies a
growing divide between the way children
from middle class and working class
families are being brought up and their
resulting life chances even though
parents have similar hopes for their
children irrespective of background.
The study, which analysed the daily
routines of a sample of English families
from different social backgrounds, found
that in some social circles parenting is
increasingly being professionalised
with mothers bearing the brunt of the
extra burden.
It found that it is now becoming the
norm for middle class children to go
to after-school activities such as ballet,
learning a musical instrument or an
extra language, at least five days a week
but still rare among working classes.
The Guardian, 22 Sept 2014, Suzanne
Moore
Labours Child Benefit stance maintains
the momentum of Tory cruelty
The child benefit cap is a policy designed
to show how Labour has manned up
and can be as punitive as the Tories. It
is widely acknowledged that keeping
this cap is largely symbolic in terms of
savings, and that 400m is a drop in the
ocean of deficit. What is actually being
cut is the symbolism of child benefit
itself. This is a universal benefit paid to
the main carer, which in 94% cases is a
woman.
Like many women, when I had my first

child I frittered it
away on nappies, food
and school trips. When I earned more
money, I saved some towards tuition fees.
Changes introduced in 2013 mean that
as a single parent who earns well I now
lose out. A universal benefit has moved
to being means-tested, which requires a
huge amount of expensive paperwork.
So I dont live on this benefit, but
many mothers do and have been further
impoverished as the cap meant the
benefit did not rise, although prices have
and wages have stagnated. Balls will
argue in his speech that sacrifices have
to be made by all sections of society.
But strangely it is always women and
children first.
Women rely on benefits more than
men precisely because we have children
to care for, and over a lifetime this affects
our capacity to earn. On average, a fifth
of a womans income will be made up of
welfare payments via benefits, tax credits
and pensions. For men its a tenth. It is
hardly news that many women are now
going without proper meals to keep their
kids clothed and fed
Labour now wants to own this mantle
of macho, to keep the momentum
of cruelty going in the name of
responsibility, But lets get real. To date,
according to figures from the Fawcett
Society, 74% of cuts enacted to benefits,
tax credits, pay and pensions have been
taken from womens income. That is who
is paying the price, and when you take
money from women you take it from
children.
The Guardian, 21 June 2014, Joanna
Moorhead
Its wrong to use children as a weapon in
divorce or separation
Penelope Leach, Britains leading
development expert, says the damage
to children from parents who split up is
being ignored at our peril
She [says that], in most cases, its best
if under-fours who are living with their
mothers dont go to stay overnight with
their fathers: it can undermine their
security, she says, could make them more
irritable, and might interfere with their
social development.
But headlines about fathers fury
have hurt her deeply. In the vast
majority of cases, its the mother who is
the primary attachment figure young
babies need a primary caregiver and

being separated from that figure can

cause them problems. If a father was
the primary caregiver Id say the baby
shouldnt be staying overnight with the
mother.
But I believe fathers are just as
important to a childs life as mothers,
though the timing is different. They tend
to come into their own in the second
year, rather than at birth, and children
who have a close relationship with their
fathers do better through life in every
way.
The bottom line, says Leach, is this:
parents matter and the more research
psychologists and neuroscientists do, the
more we realise that they matter even
more than we knew, that their influence
is even greater than we once imagined,
and that it continues for even longer than
we thought.
Monogamous long-term relationships
may be on the wane, but a full realisation
of the importance of parenting is on the
up. Says Leach: If you can no longer be
a wife, a husband or a partner, you must
remember this: you will always and for
ever be a mother or a father.
Nursery World, 2 Sept 2014, Katy Morton
Childrens charity calls for a ban on baby
rooms in nurseries
According to What About The Children?
(WATCh?), the current room structure of
most nurseries hinders the development
of under-threes.
[M]oving children to a new room
each time they reach a developmental
milestone or birthday may be appropriate
for the over-threes, but can prove
traumatic for a younger child.
WATCh says that a change of room
also means a change of a childs
key person and the loss of this close
relationship, which can be very
distressing. For this reason, WATCh
want children under the age of three to
have the same main carer at nursery, as
they do at home.
According to the charity, the
relationships people have with early
carers are the biggest factor in their
well-being, in terms of stress levels as an
infant and also into adult life. They argue
this is because the brain is incomplete at
birth and it is the early relationships that
largely determine how it develops.

Letters

hank you very much

to everyone who has
taken the time to write
to us. Weve published a
range of letters here. We
welcome any letters to info@
mothersathomematter.co.uk or
P.O. Box 43690 London SE22
9WN
No Life for a Child

I wholeheartedly concur with Imogen

Thompson (Letters, 20 December). I have
worked in primary schools where some
children as young as four were left with
childminders at 7.30am and collected
after their parents finished work. This is
no life for a child.
So many reception class children miss
out on Mum or Dad being able to collect
them from school. I would urge any
parent to think very hard before putting
their baby or young child in someone
elses care all day. Your child is precious
and needs you.
HB, Kent

Nursery Care Inconsistent

Dear MAHM website,

For my job I regularly visit nurseries.
Not in an official capacity, to quote for
cleaning services. I have been appalled at
what I have seen, and I am of the opinion
that Nurseries should be regularly
inspected.
Babies left on their own crying, due to
numbers of people looking after them.
Children looking depressed, a little
fearful. You can see it in their eyes.Baby
left with bottle hanging out of its mouth,
no one there. About 25 children sleeping
on mats, in a very small space of area.
Only about 4 inches of space left between
them.
There have been some very good
nurseries that I have visited, which are
very happy places, and the children are
happy and looked after well.
Overall, with a mother is the only
answer for a childs emotional and
mental wellbeing.
Anonymous

Old Fashioned isnt Wrong

Ive heard about your cause and would

like to say thankyou!...And how lovely
it is to feel like Im not the only full
time mum out there! Society and
government has made us feel like were

not contributing to the

system if we arent doing
paid employment everyday! I get fed up
hearing how wonderful nurseries are
and the meals are fantastic etc etc......!
The thought that I actually want to stay
at home full time baffles most people.
Im either a millionnaire or in receipt of
lots of benefits (neither is true, I hasten
to add)!
Im an intelligent, degree-educated
woman in her early 30s with 2 young
daughters at home (aged 4 years and 9
months respectively) and along with my
husband, firmly believe that Im doing
the best thing for my children by being at
home with them. They are both thriving,
secure, confident, sociable children.
And best of all I have the opportunity to
spend lots of time with these two lovely
little people and watch them learn and
grow. This time is very precious and
once its gone its gone, so I intend to
make the most of it!
Let us not think that old fashioned
means wrong. As a society we have a
tendency to lose sight of whats important
when youre a parent. Its not a fancy job
title, a tax code, earning lots of money,
keeping up with the Joness, having fancy
holidays abroad, its the children that
matter most. We must do all we can to
create a secure, happy, balanced next
generation and I hope that in some small
way I am contributing to that by staying
at home with my children.
Best Wishes and keep up the good
work!
Anonymous

MAHM on Radio rings True

Just heard someone from your

organisation talking to Vanessa on BBC
Radio London - sitting in a car park
in Kingston - and just had to email to
congratulate you!
Whoever spoke was eloquent,
firm, clear, calm and fantastic. I have
just finished the Infant Observation
Module (observing an infant from birth
each week until 2 years) of my Child
Integrative Psychotherapist MA and I
have seen acutely for myself during these
2 years that we need to encourage and
enable mums to be at home.
Thank you for all you are doing !

Anonymous

11

Mothers At
Home Matter
Committee
Chair

Marie Peacock
07722 504874
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Vice Chair

Anne Fennell
07957 232504
annefennellmahm@virginmedia.com

Mothers at
Home Matter
AGM & OPEN
MEETING

Tuesday11th of November 2014, 10.30 for 11am

The School of Economic Science
(Tube - Bond Street/Oxford Circus/Marble Arch)
11 Mandeville Place
London W1U 3AJ

Treasurer

Open Meeting: Join us to hear our two inspirational speakers, Dr Richard

House, early childhood activist and author, and Madeleine Wallin, Chair of
FEFAF.

Secretary

The event is also a great chance for members to come together and draw
inspiration from each other as well as from our speakers. We want to see
you, so please make every effort to come. Tickets are priced at 12.50.

Pat Dudley
01737 832598
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk
Lynne Burnham
01737 768705
secretary@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Membership Secretary
Sine Pickles
0208 2990156

Newsletter Editor
Claire Paye
07972 727544

media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Media Enquiries

Imogen Thompson
07913 464323
imogenthompsonmedia@gmail.com
Claire Paye
07972 727544

Lunch: A light lunch will be provided after the Open Meeting.

AGM: The AGM starts at 2pm, and all paid up members are welcome.
Commenting on early years policy Dr Richard House said in Nursery
World : Whats at stake here is the very future of family life itself not
least, the quality of young childrens early experience, and the development
of relatively anxiety-free attachment relationships. All this is gravely
threatened by an economic system that is decimating the quality of family
life and by governments who then wilfully reinforce this pernicious
process by driving mothers of young children into paid employment, rather
than giving families the financial assistance they need to create childfriendly developmental environments.
Please click on this link to book your place at the AGM.

media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Lynne Burnham
07753 803915

media-lynne@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Anne Fennell
07957 232504
Laura Perrins
07708 664974
MAHM Blog
Mel Tibbs

Newsletter Design Editor

Poppy Pickles

Committee Members

Alexandra McVicar-Payling, Heather

Tichelli, Rebecca Neal

Honorary President

Sarah Douglas-Pennant

Subscription Renewal

If youve already organised payment of this years membership subscription

or have joined in the last 6 months please ignore the request for membership
renewal. However, if youre a long-standing member, please dont forget to
increase your Standing Order at your bank to 12.50 for single members or
15 for couple membership.
If you have changed your address or email, please let us know. If you would
like to set up a Standing Order please print out and send us the Renewal
form and Standing Order form together with your cheque payable to
Mothers at Home Matter to our PO Box. Alternatively you can pay online
using Paypal.
For any additional information, including our bank account details
so you can set up a standing order yourself, please contact info@
mothersathomematter.co.uk

Advisors

Dr Neil Gilbert
Dr Richard House
Dame Sarah Cowley

Patrons

Fiona Castle, Lady Griffiths of

Fforestfach, Oliver James,
Patricia Morgan
www.mothersathomematter.co.uk
P.O. Box 43690, London SE22 9WN
@mumsdadsmatter #valuecare

12

New MAHM Advisor

MAHM is delighted to welcome Neil Gilbert Ph.D., Professor

of Social Welfare at the University of California, as Advisor.
He is the author of numerous books, including A Mothers
Work, which looks at the outsourcing of family care and
examines to what extent the choices families make are influenced
by capitalism, feminist expectations and the social policies of the
welfare state. Professor Gilbert argues that while the market ignores
the essential value of a mothers work, prevailing norms about the social
benefits of paid work have been overvalued.