Rachel Reeves MP and cabinet ministers taking maternity leave

[woeface]

Just saw this in the Mail about Rachel Reeves MP, who'd become Work and Pensions Secretary in the event of a Labour win at the election. She's pregnant, and would be going on maternity leave a month after taking up her post.

It makes me sad that this is considered newsworthy: I think that the real message is that women of childbearing age can't be trusted with powerful positions. Is it me, or do others feel uncomfortable too?

In this case I think the relevance would be who will be covering her for her maternity leave as you would want to know there is continuity.

How does it work with mps? Do you get a temporary person in to cover the constituency? Do they actually get to take time off in reality?

Are you saying that Rachel Reeves believes women of childbearing age can't be trusted with powerful positions?

Because she's the one who gave the interview to the Daily Mail and chose to bang on about her maternity leave.

Erm, it's the DM and she's Labour and a woman. With that in mind the article's quite balanced

She's planning to go on ML in June and be back by September - parliament's closed for most of that period.

I think Rachel Reeves actually gave the interview to the Telegraph, which ran it as a much broader profile piece. The Mail has picked up on the maternity leave thing, and made that the focus of their article.

That's a good point about Parliament being in recess for much of that time, Chertsey.

Actually, I think she's being a bit presumptive. If Labour win, perhaps she is a shoe in for the cabinet - EM couldn't risk not picking the pregnant woman. However, the electorate aren't bound by any equal opportunities laws or PR constraints. She needs to keep her own seat first. Has an obviously pregnant woman ever won an election?

I know it's just the Mail and blahblah and we don't expect anything better of them but this stuff is quite insidious. The underlying message is very 'women know your place' isn't it

(chertsey I think Harriet Harman was heavily pregnant when she was first elected)

I don't think she'll have any trouble keeping her seat.

What pisses me off about the story is the references to how she has no formal childcare, relying instead on her mother and aunt. You see it elsewhere - how actresses or pop stars or whatever don't have a nanny because they have family members who do the child care (or traipsing around after them) for them. Two things annoy. First it is that it is put that SHE doesn't use childcare, not THEY (her and her DH) use childcare which just goes to show that the media views childcare as a woman's issue. Yet her husband works, probably in a less demanding/stressful job than hers. Second that there is an assumption that is must be so much better to have relatives caring than someone you pay and this makes you a better mother somehow. I'm sure RR's family are marvellous but I know that my child is better off being cared for my a paid professional than my family in my circumstances.

I do think there is an issue here actually. Leaving aside the feminist aspects of it being her needing childcare etc.

I would be a bit at anyone who accepted a promotion or a new job knowing that they would be going on maternity leave a month later. ML can be up to a year, whats the point in taking a new job and then not doing it for a year? And if a week is a long time in politics then a year is forever! In a year a cabinet minister can be in and out again.

Just seems that by announcing this they are trying to buy the Mummy vote because we will all be thinking "Oh its great that they are not passing her over because she is PG" when I very much doubt anyone would have thought that anyway. Its just electioneering.

I think it is newsworthy for lots of reasons, political and just human interest.

But I fully support Rachel Reeves in pursuing her career and also having a baby/ going on Mat Leave. I'm surprised that several PP's have any issue with it.

I don't care.

She seems another Modern Labour type.

An economist who studied PPE. Whoop de woo.

The media decides what is news and what isnt. NOT the readership/ What sells papers is often the key criterion

Young women in key jobs will almost alway need mat leave at some unless they have opted for a no kids policy.
Most profs seem to opt for career to 30 then kids.

This is ridiculous. David Cameron had a baby during his first year as PRIME MINISTER of this country. I didn't hear the Mail banging on about how sleepless nights and teething might affect his ability to lead and he should have managed his family planning better. Yes I am sure his wife does a lot and probably a nanny too but the point is when it's a woman saying she will take a very short amount of time off to have a have a baby at a time in her life where she probably thinks it's right to (by that I mean age and age of her other child) it's big news. This is 2015 I can't believe the Mail still thinks such utter rubbish is newsworthy. Some of the comments on the article are sickening really but I would imagine Rachel Reeves has a lot more important things to be doing than worrying about them. I would say she is a role model for women who want a successful, meaningful career and a family just as Men are that choose to have both too.

Scotland had a minister go on maternity leave in December, it was reported as the first time it had happened and that another minister was covering. It didn't mention constituency duties but I'm guessing another MSP (maybe a list MSP) covers those? I'm not sure about voting - someone once told me that Wendy Alexander was in the chamber to vote just a few weeks after giving birth. I'm guessing Westminster votes have pairing arrangements made for that sort of situation.

A few UK government ministers have already taken mat leave, including Yvette Cooper, so I'm not sure why this is news. I'm guessing in general politicians aren't taking the full year, and are in contact a lot earlier than most of us, but I'm also guessing that that is fairly standard in business above a certain level as well.

And when you consider how much of a department's work is likely to be done by civil servants, and ministers falling into line with policy decided at a party level - it isn't like a whole department is going to be left drumming their fingers on the desk is it?

There is a nursery in the House of Commons, and presumably MPs/ministers and their families make the same kind of assessment as to what childcare works for them, again I'm not sure why particular childcare arrangements should be news.

Am I alone in thinking that being an MP is not a "regular job" ? It's not like being self employed where you can send a deputy/replacement if needs be.

As an elected public servant, who is the standby elected person ?

Who is going to be acting as an MP while she can't ? And moreover, if someone can act in her stead (linking to the story about MPs pay) then what are we paying them for ? Exactly ?

Or am I too old/stupid/ignorant/male/whatever to grasp the nuances here ?

I think it's worth reporting if only to get the message out that it is possible to do an important, powerful job during your child bearing years, particularly as women are woefully under represented in the House of Commons

The attitude of the Mail is worrying, very snide undertone, which is to be expected. More shocking, to me, is this column on the subject: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2966117/Sorry-Rachel-taking-Cabinet-seat-going-maternity-leave-feminist-says-BELINDA-BROWN.html

I would be interested to know if there is a mechanism whereby during her leave her constituents could get something raised in the House of Commons. Maybe a "buddy" MP who'd pick up an issue from the constituency office underlings.

The being a minister bit will be covered by another but the role of constituency MP is rather different.

That article was so snidey!

I'm guessing that constituents are able to contact either neighbouring MPs or local councillors Lurking if a political campaign/question is needed. Although for a very minor party (eg Green with one MP or UKIP with two) I'm not sure. I'm guessing that if Caroline Lucas needed a significant period of leave for any reason then any issues that needed to be raised in the House would find a sympathetic MP from another party to raise on her behalf. Not sure what UKIP would do if both of them were off.

I think a lot of issues brought up at surgeries are local (and can be dealt with at local level) or admin for MPs (although obviously major for the consitituent). For example, I wrote to my MP when I had huge issues with tax credits claiming I had been overpaid and he wrote a couple of letters that sorted them out (miraculously they managed to review the case when they got a letter on his headed paper but had completely failed to when I wrote to them) - I'm guessing a researcher or assistant deals with most of that stuff, although he had actually signed them himself.

And let's not just make this about maternity leave - there will also be male MPs taking paternity leave, MPs of either gender who get ill etc. There have also been MPs who have died (John Smith etc). These people don't have a regular job, but they are also working with party, admin and (for government) civil servant support behind them. Maternity leave is at least something that can be planned for.

I doubt she spends much time in her constituency office. It will be manned by her organiser and caseworkers as usual during her maternity leave. Any surgeries would continue as normal, surely no one thinks the MPs themselves raise issues with departments?
Her family are from Bromley (well known local political family) so I would think she'll be London based during her ML.
Not that it matters but she's married to a senior civil servant afaik.

I agree with Snowydrops and find the while thing quite sad to be honest.

She's not the first Minister to take maternity or paternity leave and she won't be the last. Typical women hating shit from the Daily Fail.

What's worse is it doesn't look like we have learnt anything from Yvette Cooper's experience a few years ago.

It's a job. With structured KIT and cover arrangements she shoud quite happily be able to take Mat leave and continue to d oher job on her return.

RugBugs:
What a shame that we all guess she doesn't spend much time at the constituency office.

My point was about the rare occasion something might be mentioned in the house. No need for the snotty attitude.

Personally I don't care who she is married to or why she's taking time off.

I am interested in parliamentary democracy.

In Iceland no-one batted an eyelid when a woman ran for president when seven months pregnant: www.bbc.com/news/uk-18629907