Julia Hartley-Brewer v Stella Creasy

Iam64

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

I could not agree more.

What I don't understand is why people think it is so difficult. Other countries do it.

Callistemon21

^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?

Of course women have taken advantage of the system established by men, That doesn't mean that it was a woman friendly policy. It was established by men for the benefit of men, women have just used it. And yes possibly there should be a by-election but there isn't, and yet the maternity cover would only last a limited time unlike the floor crossing which is permanent.

I can't believe that most people do not know couples where a man is at home with the children more than the woman. Why concentrate on "women" rather than parents. Times have changed folks. The more you divide society - as some seem intent on doing - the fewer babies we will see. Women are voting with their wombs. More so in Germany than here but it is happening here too.

DaisyAnne

I can't believe that most people do not know couples where a man is at home with the children more than the woman. Why concentrate on "women" rather than parents. Times have changed folks. The more you divide society - as some seem intent on doing - the fewer babies we will see. Women are voting with their wombs. More so in Germany than here but it is happening here too.

No, I don't but know DS and DIL share care as do DD and SI.

I do know some unreconstructed younger males too.

Some abandon their families and leave their partners to cope on their own too.

The more you divide society - as some seem intent on doing - the fewer babies we will see

The Earth may survive!

SIL

volver

By-election.

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

Oh, really!
No, it is not done.
Perhaps it was autocorrect again eg Algeria used to pop up sometimes

Doodledog has summed up the situation very well. Personally, I'd have hesitated to take a young baby to a crowded environment during Covid. I suspect Creasy was just trying to make a point but it would be OK. Probably better for MPs not to comment on it at all as that was just what she wanting. The baby wasn't doing anyone any harm after all.

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
That may be the case now but it was not always so.

Home Responsibilities Protection was not introduced until 1978.

Some can't afford to stay at home, and it must be galling for them to see others doing so at their expense

I am wondering in what way being a SAHM cost others to fund me? I did not have NI paid and my DH was working, paying tax and NI. I worked and paid NI for ten years before having a family, did not receive HRP and returned to work when our youngest DC was six.

I do not feel guilt; my DC have always worked since leaving education too.

And just to add - we are now funding other young families through our taxes.
That's how it works

Good post Doodledog.

Callistemon21

And just to add - we are now funding other young families through our taxes.
That's how it works

If both parents in the young families are working, they are paying taxes and funding you and any NHS treatment you receive. That's how it works!

Callistemon21

^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^
That may be the case now but it was not always so.

Home Responsibilities Protection was not introduced until 1978.

HRP isn't the issue.

Callistemon21

^Some can't afford to stay at home, and it must be galling for them to see others doing so at their expense^

I am wondering in what way being a SAHM cost others to fund me? I did not have NI paid and my DH was working, paying tax and NI. I worked and paid NI for ten years before having a family, did not receive HRP and returned to work when our youngest DC was six.

I do not feel guilt; my DC have always worked since leaving education too.

The campaign isn't about one person, is it? The campaign is about how our government supports all parents and society.

It is about how we need to change to support a changing society. It is not about what our lives were like decades ago, with children or without when we were young.

Society has changed because the majority wanted or needed that change. Some seem to want to stand in the way of what that majority see as progress.

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.

This is complete and utter, breathtaking, nonsense. Taxation doesn't fund spending, it doesn't fund whatever DD imagines SAHMs benefit from at the expense of mothers who work in paid employment. And the payment of income tax and NICs are not a measure of the worth of an individual.

So it's not only nonsense but it is suggesting that a SAHM is some sort of parasite on those who are in paid employment. They no doubt join the nation's list of scroungers and shirkers.. It's downright insulting.

Why flexible working is a good thing...

www.scotsman.com/news/defence/balancing-work-and-life-is-made-easy-for-engineering-expert-3598175

TL;DR: Mother of 2 responsible for new radar system for fighter jets, balances child care with protecting British airspace.

Wfh is pretty common now volver. Clearly this woman is in a job where wfh is entirely feasible. Same with my son and daughter in law who now go into their jobs as solicitors in London only 2 days a week and wfh the rest of the time. However there are a great many jobs where wfh is completely impossible. The only 'take away' from this is that she and her husband share the childcare equally which is good, and why shouldn't they if they can both wfh?

Well my takeaway was that she is working for an organisation that recognised her talents and provided her and their other employees with the means to balance their lives between working and childcare.

Can you imagine telling people a generation ago that the leaders of projects for designing radars for the defence industry could "do it from home"? I'm glad some organisation are looking for flexible ways of doing things and I hope other organisations will follow suit.

The pandemic has changed working practices enormously. Where previously it would have been unthinkable for people not to come into the office every day, employers have had to accept that, as their employees have successfully wfh for many months, they are just not going to get them to come back in every working day. Whether or not the nature of your work means that you are able to the couple in tailor your hours in the way that your example does is another matter though. The nature of the work has to be suitable for that in the first place. Hers obviously is, as is her husband's.

Indeed. If only all organisations were forward-thinking enough to take that view.

A lot comes down to the availability and cost of childcare. Most jobs are not exactly highflying and hourly paid jobs hardly cover childcare costs. I suspect that a lot of women struggle on with a patchwork of childcare made up of nurseries and pre and after school clubs, aunts, grannies and neighbours. However, it's time limited. Children grow older and need less 'babysitting' as time goes on.
I suspect that a patchwork of childcare provision will always be needed.

MaizieD

^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.^

This is complete and utter, breathtaking, nonsense. Taxation doesn't fund spending, it doesn't fund whatever DD imagines SAHMs benefit from at the expense of mothers who work in paid employment. And the payment of income tax and NICs are not a measure of the worth of an individual.

So it's not only nonsense but it is suggesting that a SAHM is some sort of parasite on those who are in paid employment. They no doubt join the nation's list of scroungers and shirkers.. It's downright insulting.

I disagree with you (and, yes, I am fully aware that taxation doesn't fund spending).

How do you suggest that a person's healthcare and children's education is funded, if tax and NICs aren't being paid? Obviously, there are indirect taxes, but they're only part of the money which finds its way back to the Treasury.

Who repays student loans if a graduate isn't working?

I don't agree that an economically inactive person is a scrounger or a parasite. I think that we as a society have an obligation to make sure that children are well cared for, but there are costs to society involved. One of those is that at least one parent is possibly not contributing as much to the Treasury as others and most people accept that. I think we should have heavily subsidised childcare for those who choose to work.

Leonardo are Italian and I think that is telling.

growstuff

MaizieD

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.

This is complete and utter, breathtaking, nonsense. Taxation doesn't fund spending, it doesn't fund whatever DD imagines SAHMs benefit from at the expense of mothers who work in paid employment. And the payment of income tax and NICs are not a measure of the worth of an individual.

So it's not only nonsense but it is suggesting that a SAHM is some sort of parasite on those who are in paid employment. They no doubt join the nation's list of scroungers and shirkers.. It's downright insulting.

I disagree with you (and, yes, I am fully aware that taxation doesn't fund spending).

How do you suggest that a person's healthcare and children's education is funded, if tax and NICs aren't being paid? Obviously, there are indirect taxes, but they're only part of the money which finds its way back to the Treasury.

Who repays student loans if a graduate isn't working?

I don't agree that an economically inactive person is a scrounger or a parasite. I think that we as a society have an obligation to make sure that children are well cared for, but there are costs to society involved. One of those is that at least one parent is possibly not contributing as much to the Treasury as others and most people accept that. I think we should have heavily subsidised childcare for those who choose to work.

Actually indirect taxes make up about 50% of the income brought in by tax with NIC and income tax providing the other half.
As for the statement about graduates not working paying back loans many graduates in work are not paying back because their salary is too low. The government have realised how badly the student loan system was working and are set to introduce a lower level for repayment and a longer term for repaying. What effect this will have on student nimbers remains to be seen.

Growstuff is doing a good job of saying what I think in defence of my earlier post, so I won't repeat it. I will, however, say that (a) I did not suggest that spending was funded by taxation, and (b) I did NOT suggest that SAH parents (whether mothers or fathers) are parasites, scroungers or shirkers, and would like an apology for that accusation.

I am saying that there is no getting away from the fact that it if most people didn't work and pay for health, education, roads, libraries, pensions and services, others would not be able to choose not to, (or not unless their partner were expected to pay their contribution for them until they re-entered the workforce, or unless we all had to pay for health, education etc as we used them). How else would they be available to all? What would happen if nobody worked?

My personal view is based on 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. I think that 'society' should pay for all children (and adults) to be educated, to have healthcare, social housing if they want or need it, and a decent pension, and that this should be paid for by progressive taxation of all capable adults. Taxation would have to be higher than it is currently, but as we wouldn't need to pay for all the things mentioned, and if everyone were expected to pay, most people would see a net gain. Those who didn't would be living in a much fairer society and would have a safety net if their lives became less comfortable, so overall we would all benefit.

That would only work if we all contributed if able to do so, however, and would mean that as a society we would have to have conversations about what choices needed to be made regarding the right of individuals to opt in and out. There are all sorts of possible ways for people to 'pay back' financial contributions, but as it stands these are entirely voluntary and not everyone takes them up - I'm sure we all know as many 'ladies (or gentlemen) who lunch' as we do stalwarts of the WI or other voluntary bodies.