Julia Hartley-Brewer v Stella Creasy

Galaxy

I went part time after my children were born, if I had daughters I would advise them not to do that.

I wouldn't advise my daughters - they are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves!!

I wouldnt advise anyone to do it, whether they were related to me or not, I think it entrenches the situation for women and makes sharing the job of raising children etc even more difficult.

Perhaps I should have married a SAHD

What every would-be mother needs!

If you want to really see some hate, take a look at the responses Creasey got on Twitter when she tweeted this picture. Bus drivers come up, of course. Medics too. "Sense of entitlement." Almost like people were copying each other.

I think my favourite is the woman saying there's a lack of affordable childcare where she lives/works, and that Stella should do something about that

Callistemon21

^The working mother thing…. Went back to part time work after four years at home^

I would think that many of us did that although life doesn't always work out as we plan.
So it is not a case of working mothers -v- stay at home mothers; it's a case of finding the best way to be a juggler and keep all the balls in the air particularly as, quite often, women find they are the carers for elderly parents at the same time as seeing to children's needs.

Children's needs are paramount imo. Work fits in around children, that is why so many women I know became teachers or worked part-time or flexible hours if possible.

Not everyone may agree, of course.

My point was that going back to work definitely made me a better person AND parent. Staying at home doesn’t automatically make one a better parent !

Callistemon21

^I thought you might want to have another go at finding some facts that would support the argument, since the ones you had found did the exact opposite^.

Yes, the facts do fit.
Stella Creasy publicised this once before when she took her 13 week old baby into the HofC when she could have voted by proxy; rather reckless with Covid around.
She took the baby in again age 7 months when she could quite easily have left him at home with the Nanny.

She is not really advancing the cause of mothers' rights when she had perfectly satisfactory alternatives each time.

But surely the point is that everyone doesn't and she represents those people.

Callistemon21

^I thought you might want to have another go at finding some facts that would support the argument, since the ones you had found did the exact opposite^.

Yes, the facts do fit.
Stella Creasy publicised this once before when she took her 13 week old baby into the HofC when she could have voted by proxy; rather reckless with Covid around.
She took the baby in again age 7 months when she could quite easily have left him at home with the Nanny.

She is not really advancing the cause of mothers' rights when she had perfectly satisfactory alternatives each time.

You posted a link to a document that you thought proved the fact that Creasey could have voted by proxy and then another poster pretended there was a "deafening silence", perhaps thinking that there was no answer to it, you'd found the truth.

I posted an extract from the document you linked to that showed that the way you were trying to use it was incorrect and that Creasey could not have voted by proxy.

So, the link that you found actually proved the opposite to what you thought it did. The facts didn't fit.

Now you're accusing her of exposing the baby to Covid. What next.

Whatever next
This, as you are challenging:

2nd November 2021
Covid restrictions are being stepped up in parliament, with MPs told to wear masks, tours of the building cancelled and some staff told to work from home.

The move came after the UK Health Security Agency warned the risk of the virus transmitting between those who work in the Palace of Westminster had become “greater”

Ms Creasy took her baby into the Commons just a couple of weeks later.

Nanny must have been busy.

I don't know if she is furthering the rights of working mothers or not; many may be riled that she has so many advantages compared to them regarding childcare and the ability to pay for it and think she is posturing and grandstanding.
Is she helping or not?

Like I said yesterday, if even Raab thinks she's got a point, then you have to think she's doing something right.

Coming into parliament, trying to make people's lives better. Who does she think she is? An elected lawmaker or something?

So what exactly is she advocating?
The rights of all mothers to have state provided childcare available for 24/7 365 days a year?
The rights of mothers to be able to take their children to work? Try telling that to the Captain of an RN vessel, an Army major, an RAF pilot!
Maternity leave for MPs?

What, exactly?

Why is maternity leave (or paternity leave) impossible for MPs?
Creasy is advocating better family friendly hours in the HoC, as are many other MPs

We need subsidised high quality child care for pre schoolers. Breakfast, after school and holiday clubs for school age children. We need to focus on parents/carers rather than mothers being seen as the parent who goes part time, stops working etc
She’s a brave woman to make herself the target of so much criticism for drawing attention to these issues

Callistemon the world isn't as black and white as that. I've posted a link to a conference that she was part of this week, I'll not do it again as that would be spamming.

What's suitable for an MP might not be suitable for a bus driver, but everyone's situation could be improved. I agree with Iam64's post.

Why is maternity leave (or paternity leave) impossible for MPs?
Creasy is advocating better family friendly hours in the HoC, as are many other MPs

Fair enough; they should have the same rights in law as other parents - they passed the laws.
How would that work - parental leave cover would require a bi-election?

She is in a peculiar job with specific working conditions and an absent husband. Her fight does not apply to most working parents, it is quite unique in fact.

What about 24/7 365 pa provision for all working parents?
Who pays? Who provides the cover?

Callistemon the world isn't as black and white as that

I'm just asking questions
It's not me that is rigid and inflexible.
Read some of the posts on here.
?

Why is this so hard?

Why does anybody object to people trying to make other people's lives better and making the country fairer?

BTW - I wasn't going to post this because I can guess what comes next. But the Scottish Finance Minister is taking maternity leave and the Parliament is working out how to make it work.

Well, that is wonderful!
What do the voters think?

because I can guess what comes next

Never assume anything

I can't see that permitting an MP to take a year's maternity leave, with someone standing in who had the same political principles and belonged to the same political party, would be any different or anymore objectionable than an MP choosing to cross the floor and join a party which isn't the one he was elected to support. There is one big difference of course. The maternity leave would only ever apply to a women, the changing parties is an established male prerogative. One again male values dominate our parliament.

The maternity leave would only ever apply to a women, the changing parties is an established male prerogative. One again male values dominate our parliament

Women MPs have crossed the floor too, not as many, less than 50.
But that throws up another question - should there be a bi- election as the MP may not then represent what their voters wanted?

By-election.

I'm sorry. I know its not done to correct spelling, but it's so distracting.

It is male dominated though and decisions made over the last 12 years have really affected women in a negative way. The changes to family allowance for a start, cuts to services, cuts to carers services, inadequate access to respite - just those things affect women more than men.

I really don't understand why taking a sleeping baby in a sling in the middle of the night to vote is such a big deal. It's not like the PM took all his children in with him to vote, I could understand the logistical problems with that

Callistemon21

^Why is maternity leave (or paternity leave) impossible for MPs?^
Creasy is advocating better family friendly hours in the HoC, as are many other MPs

Fair enough; they should have the same rights in law as other parents - they passed the laws.
How would that work - parental leave cover would require a bi-election?

She is in a peculiar job with specific working conditions and an absent husband. Her fight does not apply to most working parents, it is quite unique in fact.

What about 24/7 365 pa provision for all working parents?
Who pays? Who provides the cover?

Suella Braverman had maternity cover because she's a government minister. Stella Creasy didn't get it because she's only a backbencher. How is that fair?

JaneJudge

I really don't understand why taking a sleeping baby in a sling in the middle of the night to vote is such a big deal. It's not like the PM took all his children in with him to vote, I could understand the logistical problems with that

Maybe because the anti-woke brigade have to have something to moan about.

I don't think that all employers can offer 24/7 childcare, and I wouldn't necessarily want to see that happen, as it would put pressure onto parents, and more particularly mothers, to fit their family around work, rather than the other way round.

To me, there are two separate issues. The first is that everyone, whether or not they are parents, should be able, as far as possible, to plan their time and make arrangements knowing what their working hours are going to be. Clearly, this won't apply to everyone - police officers, and others who might be doing something unpredictable at the end of a shift won't be able to do that, but most people should. This would allow people to have childcare in place if they need it, and would also allow them to do things outside of work if they want to do that. Having everyone unable to make plans for anything (looking after parents, walking a dog, joining a choir, whatever) doesn't make for a cohesive society, and there is usually no need. On the odd occasion that someone needs to go into their workplace out of hours, I feel that their flexibility should be matched by flexibility from the employer.

The second, and more emotive issue is the one about SAH parents. I think that there should be choice in the matter, but I don't think that it's right to pretend that these choices are cost-neutral. Someone has to pay if capable members of the workforce are not contributing to the collective purse. People often say that they contribute in other ways, by keeping house and by volunteering, but working parents (and non-parents) also volunteer and also have family and housekeeping responsibilities - they are not peculiar to those who are at home during the day.

People who have stayed at home, not paying tax and having their NI contributions paid for them have been able to do so only because other people went to work and made those contributions whilst also paying for commuting and childcare out of their salaries. We don't have a system which asks the working parent to contribute on behalf of the SAH one, yet both parents have access to all the things paid for out of tax and NI, as do their children. I am not saying that this should not happen, but I find it astounding that those who have made the choice to stay at home can be so rude to the people who have worked to allow that choice to be made, and take the moral high ground by suggesting that working parents have let down their children - or worse, that there was 'no point' in having them if for part of the day they would be cared for by someone else.

As has been said, not all parents work because they want to. Some can't afford to stay at home, and it must be galling for them to see others doing so at their expense. Others could afford to stay at home but prefer to have financial independence, or may have other reasons for wanting to earn money or to go to work. Yet others are lucky enough to have a job that they enjoy, and feel that they, and therefore their children, will be happier if they are able to continue in their work - being brought up by a resentful parent is no picnic.

Similarly, there will be SAH parents who believe that they are the only people who should be around their children, others who didn't have a fulfilling career and prefer to be 'at home' (I realise that SAH parents are not tied to the house ), and yet others who would earn very little after childcare, commuting, tax and NI have been paid, so don't see it as worth their while.

None of the above is 'wrong', IMO, but neither is any of the choices morally superior, or any of the effects on the children absolute. In my experience, most children love their parents (even the rubbish ones), and wouldn't hurt them by saying that they wish they had done things differently and worked or not worked - what happened for them was just the way it was.