I had to check my hearing was OK. When Kemi Badenoch said ‘excessive’ in relation to the UK’s maternity pay, I assumed it was a mistake. Surely no one would say that being paid 44% of national minimum wage for raising the next generation was too much? I mean, the UK has one of the lowest maternity pay rates in The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. So surely not? Especially from another woman.
But the Tory MP doubled down on her belief that the government has ‘done enough’ for maternity leavers. Back in the day, there was no maternity pay so we should apparently count ourselves lucky to a thrown an overly-chewed bone here.
Well, women also didn’t have the vote at one point. And there was a time when sexual assault wasn’t a crime so there’s that, too. In fact, many would argue that progress and equality doesn’t come from a standpoint of ‘This is how it used to be’.
And while Badenoch has since backed down and claimed she was ‘misrepresented’, that she was making a wider point about government intervention and seemed to be saying that the cost of having children needs to be covered by individual responsibility, she's on video outright making this claim: 'Statutory maternity pay is a function of tax, tax comes from people who are working, we are taking from one group of people and giving to another, this in my view is excessive.'
This is a statement from a woman expensing her gas bill to the tax payer with office-delivery of her favourite magazines. If this is what one of our few female politicians believes, what hope is there for burnt-out, undervalued mothers who are – to put it bluntly – carrying the bulk of childcare and raising the next generation of employees?
I say this at 33 weeks pregnant with my third daughter. I’m a freelancer and had to go into hospital recently with bleeding and Braxton Hicks contractions. Instead of the focus being on the health of my unborn child, it was on the abject fear that I would lose out on projects I’d been commissioned to write. The financial implications and the lack of protection for working mothers – as a freelancer it’s even more stark - is on par with the anxiety of hearing that first cry.
Many women can’t even afford to have children in 2024. My Instagram @mother_pukka is peppered with grief of women outpriced from motherhood. As a freelancer I’m going to be on £184.03 a week. My rent, bills, food and travel stay the same. But my income falls off a cliff as I’m left shushing a newborn into the night while trying not to lose my mind.
Like Badenoch, I have a supportive partner who can pick up the financial pieces. I’m hugely privileged with grandparents exhaustedly on the sidelines ready to paper over the childcare cracks of a woefully-underfunded system. I am one of the ‘lucky ones’ and yet my career is about to nosedive and that’s before getting to single parent families navigating this is in a cost-of-living crisis.
For those in employment, it’s 39 weeks of pay with the first six weeks at 90% of average weekly earnings before tax. The remaining 33 weeks come in at £184.03. For all the lacklustre numbers, all that needs to be said here is it’s not even close to enough as women bleed, breastfeed, hold and raise the baby – but also the economy – in their arms.
Far from the blathering old guard saying ‘but you chose to have a baby’, parenting is not a hobby and it’s not on par with owning a dog. It’s a job, Mother Nature’s biggest task that requires guts often without the glory. And the bottom line is The Peterson Institute found that companies with 30% or more women at the top made more profits.
So Kemi, you're not doing us a favour.