Last year I stood as a Labour candidate in the local elections here in Wandsworth. My daughter was 10 weeks old when i got selected, and 5 months by the time of the election. I narrowly missed out but the experience confirmed to me that I really, truly believe we need more mums in politics, but the system makes it so difficult for us to get involved.
So maybe I'm overly sensitive to jibes towards women juggling parenthood and politics. But i saw a twitter spat this morning that really made my blood boil. Some of the local Tories are suggesting that Cllr Rachael Stokes, a Labour councillor in Earlsfield who is expecting a baby soon, isn't up to the job. Of course they're not stupid enough to directly challenge her for having a baby while in office. But it's telling that when taken to task on the right of elected women to take maternity leave, their comment was 'we're all sympathetic, but the need for representation doesn't go away'. On top of patronisingly caling her 'Stokesy', 'nondescript', and 'poor'.
One of the reasons this makes me so cross is that it's part of a bigger picture. Rachel Reeves, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is also expecting a baby. Her commitment to the job has been repeatedly questioned, as has her ability to do the job. Would new dads be subjected to this kind of challenge? On the other hand, the Tories up in Walthamstow have suggested the local Labour MP, Stella Creasy, is somehow not up to the job because she doesn't have children and therefore lacks some kind of life experience.
This kind of rubbish is exactly the thing that puts people off politics. But I really think we desperately need more mums involved, both locally and nationally. Seems like there's still a massive culture shift required to get over the attitudes some people have to women daring to have children while in elected office.
Anyway, rant over (for now). Is it just me who feels this??