Stella Creasey forbidden from bringing her baby to Parliament

[ArabellaScott]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59396801

'"I've had a baby, I haven't given up my brain or capacity to do things and our politics and our policy making will be better by having more mums at the table," she added.'

Interesting to think how politics and daily life might be changed were it to be more mother (and child) friendly.

Cheese that is absolutely grim behaviour of Rees Mogg if he’s behind this strangely under-publicised change.

The timing suggests it was pushed though super fast and so quietly that even the speaker didn't know the rule had been changed.

Specifically to get at creasey.

Everything about him I find utterly loathsome.

Excellent call @CheeseMmmm.

This is worth repeating. Lindsay Hoyle's quote. He added: “I have been heavily lobbied not to change the rules, by other mothers. And it’s been very clear, I have texts on my phone saying ‘do not give in
Yet he didn't know of the rule change?

Bullshit. Actually it's misogynistic bullshit, changing the rules, not informing the women it impacts, not even informing the Speaker. JRM got in a snit and punished the uppity woman made life difficult for female MPs, confident in the knowledge that women who don't like women would sheild him. Like Nanny would.

Is that a reference to the rules which allowed it before.

That were changed in September so quietly even they as the speaker didn't know?

Thats not clear to me.

Review will include views of MPs in general.

So it's going to stay for sure if it's essentially a vote. Not sure how that will work.

If all canvassed. For any of this stuff. Talking hypothetical. Whole country. Everyone of working age. All employees of an org. Whatever.

Then we wouldn't have equality act, maternity leave or pay, various laws for various sex offences and so on and across all minority/ oppressed groups.

Horrible to say but that's my gut feeling.

If it went back a fair old while. Reckon we'd still be property.

Yes / no stays reversed. JRM.(from press he indicated) then has-

1. CHANGED the existing rule (the that was widely covered in the press at the time with a lot of pieces saying brilliant, progressive, MPs not restricted in doing their important job re constituents etc because baby. Etc etc.

1. Disjointed sorry. He probably unilaterally reversed this rule and did so very quietly.

1. He's famously just a total misogynist. And a childish man who is not averse to behaving like a total shit. So often and in so many ways. And it looks like he did this as a pointed fuck you to Creasey personally.

1. And when found out. Rather then saying no due process on important issue esp for women esp those who have babies. We've been through all this before. Revert to previous rule.

1. Looks like may be essentially vote which sure will keep new rule.

1. JRM puts on top hat and tails, tells wife that singlehandedly looking after loads of children is her job as it's always been. Says expect me back next week. And enjoys extensive gleeful celebration with some old friends including some bullingdon club chaps.

For fucking fucks sake. IF that is what happens. Rather than telling him off for what he did and changing it back. Then. Well. No words strong enough.

Good - how can you have a debate with a poor baby strapped to you, babies do not need to be in that sometimes stressful and rowdy environment. I couldn’t go to work with my child. Is she a bit silly? Women do everything already- we don’t bloody want to be depicted in public life doing two things at once - we are women not superwomen.

It's about having the ability as an MP to represent her constituents which is a fundamental.

Massive differences to other jobs.

And also thank you for proving the point o just made!

Her constituency has nearly 65,000 people in it.

65000 people that she has a fundamental duty to speak for. To protect their interests.. To raise important local issues.

Thinking about it though. I mean so what.

What a silly woman!

I would’ve loved to have strapped dds to me when I was cabin crew. Imagine that, sashaying down the aisle with a baby strapped to me?!
It’ll just send us women backwards in time with maternity leave if she tries to carry on with this. She’s lucky they have an on-site nursery, it was put there for a reason.

@CheeseMmmm

Her constituency has nearly 65,000 people in it.

65000 people that she has a fundamental duty to speak for. To protect their interests.. To raise important local issues.

Thinking about it though. I mean so what.

What a silly woman!

So should she stay in the chamber if her son starts screaming? Because surely a 'fundamental duty' can't be reliant on the compliance of a baby?

If we are concerned about constituency representation then it is the speaker''s constituency that loses out most. And by convention they don't even get the opportunity to vote for someone else.

It’s strange how people keep repeating this childcare point. Is it relevant. Yes there is some kind of on site childcare in the Houses of Parliament- and that’s great. Wish this was more of a thing in workplaces.
However there is a massive difference between using the chamber for childcare (which she clearly isn’t doing otherwise the baby would be there all the time…)
Vs
using the chamber with baby in tow to make a political point about working mothers in Parliament. Which is a totally valid point about equal POLITICAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL NEW MOTHERS AND WORKING MOTHERS… which we should all care about.

If Jacob Rees Mogg has quietly slipped through some change in laws to stop women from drawing attention to this issue by bringing their camera friendly slinged, sleeping tiny baby in to the chamber, well that just exactly proves Stella Creasey’s point then, doesn’t it?

Diversity includes all sorts of life stages and needs in society, this is one of them. She’s not campaigning to bring her baby into the commons chamber every day instead of putting it into nursery, is she. She’s not an idiot. She’s starting a discussion by pushing an issue which is how you get things done.

She’s not an idiot. She’s starting a discussion by pushing an issue which is how you get things done

She is behaving like an idiot here.

@KimikosNightmare

She’s not an idiot. She’s starting a discussion by pushing an issue which is how you get things done

She is behaving like an idiot here.

I agree. No sympathy for her whatsoever.

I genuinely can't work out what the point she's making is - I can't work out if she's saying 'look, you didn't give me the maternity cover I wanted so I have to do this clearly absurd thing instead' or if she's saying 'it's totally fine and reasonable to bring my baby to work and denying me the right to do so means you don't support working parents'. Which suggests it isn't actually the most effective of campaigns, really.

I don't find her the clearest communicator tbh.

I assume those who are saying no sympathy silly etc knows the situation?

If you do then I think that's a bizarre take.

Why should women keep quiet when rules in place are changed quietly in the background that impact them adversely? Definitely they could not say anything. Silly to.

This thread is gold for some reading! The insistence on ignoring the actual situation in order to Wang on about silly women

@HardbackWriter

I genuinely can't work out what the point she's making is - I can't work out if she's saying 'look, you didn't give me the maternity cover I wanted so I have to do this clearly absurd thing instead' or if she's saying 'it's totally fine and reasonable to bring my baby to work and denying me the right to do so means you don't support working parents'. Which suggests it isn't actually the most effective of campaigns, really.

That sums it up really well except you have to add in " and for some reason , which I can't coherently explain, I can't use the extremely generous options you have offered me"

In short-

If JRM unilaterally changes rules about HoC and keeps it quiet, in order to prove a point to someone he doesn't like.

Then that's no problem at all. And no one should say anything about it.

(Certainly looking very much like that's who is at the bottom of this).

Ok well everyone's different I suppose!

This thread is gold for some reading! The insistence on ignoring the actual situation in order to Wang on about silly women

If a woman is being silly , why should that not be commented on?

I agree there's some comedy gold on here . I particularly liked the joke about someone's granny not needing childcare because granny just took the children to the market place with her. Even better was the one about a working farm being totally suitable for children.

Why do parents even need childcare anyway? Given that apparently so many workplaces are suitable for children and so many jobs can be done simultaneously with looking after children?

If anyone has any updates interested to read.

Press is predictably polarised. She's ruining everything for all women Vs she's been treated unfairly.

Just read one.. MPs get no mat leave as their role for constituency comes first.

@Lovelyricepudding

If we are concerned about constituency representation then it is the speaker''s constituency that loses out most. And by convention they don't even get the opportunity to vote for someone else.

Very true.

@KimikosNightmare

This thread is gold for some reading! The insistence on ignoring the actual situation in order to Wang on about silly women

If a woman is being silly , why should that not be commented on?

I agree there's some comedy gold on here . I particularly liked the joke about someone's granny not needing childcare because granny just took the children to the market place with her. Even better was the one about a working farm being totally suitable for children.

Why do parents even need childcare anyway? Given that apparently so many workplaces are suitable for children and so many jobs can be done simultaneously with looking after children?

Comprehension clearly isn't your strong point.🙄

Comprehension clearly isn't your strong point

Nor yours apparently. I didn't think I needed to insert a sarcasm emoji.