Here’s absolute proof mothers are better off staying at home

IN OUR increasingly mad and dogma-driven country, most political slogans mean the opposite of what they seem to say. The best example of this is the phrase ‘family-friendly’. This describes measures to ensure that most parents hardly ever see their children, who are instead brought up by paid strangers.

One ‘family-friendly’ policy is taxpayer subsidies for the network of day orphanages where abandoned children are detained without trial for long hours, while their mothers are chained to desks miles away.

Yes, I’m laying it on a bit thick here, but nothing like as much as my opponents, who claim that mothers who stay at home to raise their own children are ‘chained to the kitchen sink’.

This stupid expression is at the heart of a long and furious propaganda campaign against real family life, waged by weirdo revolutionaries since the 1960s. Originally doomed to failure, it suddenly succeeded when big business realised that female staff were cheaper and more reliable than men.

But our near-totalitarian propaganda machine, which pushes its views in school PSHE classes, TV and radio soap operas and countless advice columns, has succeeded brilliantly in making young mothers feel ashamed of being at home with their small children.

AND here is the absolute proof of that. A significant number of homes – four per cent – lose money by having both parents at work. Many – ten per cent – gain nothing from this arrangement. Yet they still do it. Many more gain so little that it is barely worth the bother.

The most amazing statistic of the past year (produced by insurance company Aviva) shows that thousands of mothers who go out to work are, in effect, working for nothing. The cost of day orphanages, travel and other work expenses cancels out everything they earn.

Many more barely make a profit on the arrangement. One in four families has a parent who brings home less than £100 a month after all the costs of work have been met.

How strange. When people ignore their own material best interests, it is a clear sign that they have been deluded by propaganda or fashion, or both.

How much better it would be for everyone involved if these mothers stayed with their children. Both generations would be immensely happier, the children would be better brought-up, neighbourhoods, often deserted by day, would revive. Yet, because of a cynical alliance between Germaine Greer and the Fat Cats of the Corporations, and because almost all women in

I THINK that we could save a lot of honours heartache on New Year’s morning, as those who think they are great and good mutter in fury at the awards given to others and not to them. Let’s have a comprehensive, mixed-ability honours system.

Give a bauble to everyone, but reserve the best ones for those who can pay, or who live in nice postcodes. Our elite is happy to have this daft system in our schools, so how can they object to it in the giving of honours? politics are furious believers in nationalised childhood, we spurn this wise policy, even if it costs us money.