Jo Swinson

Nice to see the BBC correcting a rumour as opposed to starting one to deflect from Johnson's behaviour yesterday.

In your opinion, what would happen to the children if they were being looked after by a nanny they were very happy with Lancslass1?

I don't suppose she or her husband could care less what you think. She doesn't need your approval.

I couldn't agree more Binkiebonk.

Ah I see your point ,growstuff
Fair enough
Well to get back to the Jo Swinson debate then.
If her husband is at home and looking after the children rather than a nannie then that is fine by me.
(Although I really think that it is the mum that most children want when they are in trouble -but of course again I only think that.)
I am not saying I am right.
It is my opinion.

Ruth Davidson is still an MSP - she has not given up work. She is to be admired for many things, including her support for other women's choices.

My advice is 'get a life' of your own, so you have less time on your hands to bother about other people's affairs. Who cares about how much or how little time someone in the publuc eye spends with their children and and is it anyone's business other than Jo Swinson's?

As growstuff said - if you differentiate between men and women in that way then you're being sexist, whether you like it or not.

My MIL was born before the second world war - she was ten when it broke out. She worked all her life as a teacher, even when DH and SIL were small. Her own mum had her own business and worked all her married life. She is very much in favour of men and women working.

As far as I am concerned the best Conservative politician there is, is not in Westminster, but in the Scottish Parliament. It is Ruth Davidson. I had hoped she would run for a seat in Westminster and then would be by far the best candidate for Leader of the party and Prime Minister. I think she was a major reason why the Scottish Conservatives did so well in Scotland, at the last election, in comparison to the rest of the country!

She has however decided to put her little son and partner first and has stood down as Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. While it is a disappointment politically, it is so refreshing that, unlike Ms. Swinson, she has decided that family come first and she wants to spend more time with them during these precious early years! Ms. Swinson doesn’t appear to share these ideals and her political aspirations seem to come first. Hopefully Ms. Davidson will return to front line politics when her little boy is older!

Would you say the same about a party leader who was a young dad?

You are being sexist if you don't think the same conditions should apply to a man.

I don't think she does either Gingergirl, but I'll still vote LibDem for all the good it will do in this constituency.

Even if you don't think your vote will count, it does mean that the party will receive more "Short money", which helps opposition parties with their expenses in the future.

So just vote!

Incidentally,Sir Chengin,I can’t see how I am being sexist.
I am not saying that it is wrong for any woman to have a high powered job but I do believe that if a woman chooses to have children she should wait until they are older before she takes on such a role..
I am saying that Gender bias is wrong.

I don’t think anyone can replace a mother’s presence in those early formative years. However, I’m sure I’m in the minority to have this view. Lib Dem want to increase financial support for working parents and I have my doubts about that too. I do agree with some of their policies though and may well vote for them in Thursday but personally I don’t think she does the party any favours.

No I am not back tracking.
Yes I am saying that it is women with high powered jobs like Leaders of Political Parties I have an issue with if that is the way you want to put it.
I cannot understand why any mother would want to spend so much time away from her children when they are growing up.
Mind you I can’t understand why people have children and then send them away to Boarding Schools either .

May I say that I am really surprised how antagonistic people get on this site.
We are all entitled our opinions.
I am not narrow minded .
Some of you seem to get quite worked up about things.
It doesn’t matter what we think .
I do think - notice I say “think” -that it may be a generation thing.
I am not saying I am right.
I was born during the Second World War.

My wonderful mother worked hard all her life out of necessity. Although I admired her for doing so I really wish she had been there during those early years.

So let me get this straight. You're now backtracking completely and it's only women in high powered jobs (a very recent occurence) you have an issue with? Do you have the same issue with all parents in high powered jobs, or just women? What's the high powered cut off point at which you think children would rather have a pound of their mum's (or rather, parent's) time but outside of that they're OK with their parents working - £40K? £80k? £150k?

Growstuff made some excellent points there - especially the last paragraph. I'd probably add 'sexist' to the parochial.

Lanclass1 I have no idea whether or not I am of your generation, but I don't see the relevance, as I think for myself.

I'm sorry, but just because you know of a firm that has an Equal Opps policy, (or even a positive discrimination one), that does not mean that 'everyone bends over backwards for women'.

I'm sure that Richard Attenborough is an interesting friend, but again, whatever he has told you about his domestic arrangements can't really be extrapolated to everyone else, as both he and his wife would be away for long periods because of their work. In most families, childcare can be shared between the parents, with outside help where necessary.

I wouldn't mind betting Jo Swinson's children will feel proud of having a mother who worked hard and put herself forward, even when faced with criticism.

They have a father and I expect they'll be grateful they have two parents, who have somehow worked out how to show they care.

I expect they'll be grateful they have parents who can afford a decent home and will almost certainly care about their education and future.

They'll probably be grateful they have intelligent parents, who will have brought them up not to be parochial.

Why does that make any difference?

I didn't have a 9-4 job either, but I managed. Are you seriously saying that mothers shouldn't have high-powered jobs?

I've had enough of this narrow-mindedness.

I am talking about women in high powered jobs ,growstuff and Sir Chengin.
A leader of a Political Party does not have a 9-4 job.
I obviously did not make myself clear.
I should have said that in the past and in the main the man was the breadwinner and obviously women particularly woman class women went to work because they had to ,in order to make ends meet .
However they ,the women were the ones who looked after the children as well.
I don’t know how old Jo Swinson’s children are but if they are of an age to understand and they were asked if they would rather have a pound of her money or an hour of her time,I wonder what they would say?

For heaven's sake: what century are you living in? All mothers work nowadays in most countries. They don't have the option of staying at home looking after their children, as no-one can buy a house on one income alone, and if you don't work, you are not paying contributions to a pension scheme.

Any woman who cares sufficiently for her country and for the welfare of people in general, not just her nearest and dearest, should be able to enter politics without being called a dreadful mother. You can love your children dearly, but believe that you serve their interests best by doing the job you are good at, rather than staying at home looking after them.

In politics as in most jobs, if you opt out for three or four years for any reason, you can't get back in without the greatest of difficulty.

SNAP SirChenjin! Indeed!

Not strange at all - because there wasn’t a plethora of robust evidence in place to show there was any sort of social, economic or health benefits.

Lancslass1 - I suggest you read up on your social history if you think that women have stayed at home to look after the children for centuries while men have gone to work.

Have another look at social history Lancslass. Women did not stay at home to look after their children for centuries. Working class women, who were in the majority, nearly always worked, doing menial work in factories, fields, institutions, cleaning or taking in work such as laundry and sewing. Wealthier women had nannies and wet nurses.

The children themselves helped with fishing, farming and home working, if they weren't sent out to work down mines and in factories, etc.

The "stay at home mother" only became a phenomenon for wealthier middle class women in the nineteenth century and became the "norm" for some after WW2.