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.

@CheeseMmmm

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!

It's a particular type of feminism where the furthering of women's rights only applies to "approved" women. You can be as misogynistic as you want about women you dislike or don't agree with.

As it happens I greatly admired Stella Creasey for the cross- party initiative she led on abortion rights in NI.

I'm aware others on here don't like her for views on trans issues, but I don't have an opinion on that.

I think she is being extremely silly here, in this particular situation. Beyond that I neither like nor dislike her.

JRM doesn't write the rules- they're published as being written by the speaker & deputy speakers.

The procedure committee might also be involved- chaired by a woman.

But JRM can't unilaterally change the rules and conventions of the house like that.

Have you actually read anything about this?

The speaker didn't know. That's why an enquiry/ review has been ordered.

Could be false news I suppose, is that the angle you're coming from?

Creasy's campaign seems to have resulted in hardly anyone knowing what it is she wants, specifically, and mutual incomprehension in those trying to discuss it. It's interesting that the discussions are in many cases relying on facts which are incorrect. It's an incoherent mess.

It's not a campaign.

It's a reaction to the rules being changed so quietly that a woman directly affected didn't know and nor did the speaker.

The number of posters suggesting that she should not make a fuss when this happens are very peculiar.

At the bottom of this maybe it's about women esp with children making a fuss. I'm beginning to think.

If I was in her position with a small baby I would not have wanted to leave the baby in a creche before 6m. I used to be on a board where I took a new-born and she was no disturbance to anyone because I as holding/ breastfeeding the whole time. I don't think it is that SC thinks she is better, we NEED her to be able to do her role even though she has given birth recently. otherwise we lose another woman from the debates. She is in a particular situation which is not really comparable to a job. We need to think of the babies needs and the baby will be most content near his mum at this stage. no other jobs require the baby to be separated from its mother in these early months. Ideally new mothers should be allocate offices near to the chamber so it is easier to manage with a small baby, and have a full time nanny who the MP can hand the baby to if he is getting fretful or the debates are delayed.

@CheeseMmmm

It's not a campaign.

It's a reaction to the rules being changed so quietly that a woman directly affected didn't know and nor did the speaker.

The number of posters suggesting that she should not make a fuss when this happens are very peculiar.

At the bottom of this maybe it's about women esp with children making a fuss. I'm beginning to think.

I think you're spot on @CheeseMmmm.

and have a full time nanny who the MP can hand the baby to if he is getting fretful or the debates are delayed.

Why not just let the nanny look after the baby throughout the debate? Surely that's less disruptive for the baby?

With a newborn / young baby.

Surely it's least disruptive for a v young to stay snuggled to mothers chest.

I can post a link to 2019 when issue was raised of MPs essentially having to choose between MP / mother. The PM at the time agreed that was the position and it was no good.

To those asking what she wants:
She’s talked about it on her Twitter in several posts, for eg
mobile.twitter.com/stellacreasy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

mobile.twitter.com/stellacreasy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

She’s also running a campaign with Pregnant Then Screwed, called ‘this mum votes’, ‘to ensure mums of young children have a seat at the table in decision making in the UK by increasing the numbers of women with young children or caring responsibilities elected at all levels of office. It will also campaign for the ‘This Mum Votes’ policy agenda’
[…]
‘What are the policy pledges of This Mum Votes?

1. Good quality, affordable childcare
   

The Women’s Budget Group research shows Universal childcare is a vital infrastructure investment, and that investment in care creates 2.7 times as many jobs as the same investment in construction. In the first instance the campaign will advocate for a cap on the costs of childcare for all families at 10% of total income, and for those families with combined incomes of under £30,000 to have free childcare. In the longer term, TMR will lead the call for universal childcare provision from the age of 6 months for all children – it will also fight for Childcare workers to be paid the same as primary school workers.

2. Ring fenced paid paternity leave and all jobs advertised as flexible by default
   

Paternity leave is good for the wellbeing and education of children as well as it benefiting the careers of women. It is also good for marriages. Yet, only 2% of UK dads use shared parental leave. Other countries have shown that if paternity leave is ring-fenced and paid at 80% of salary then dads take time out in their droves. So too flexible working should be the default way of working- listed in job adverts so that it is built into how a job is designed, rather than shoehorned into a role afterwards. Research shows that this is what employees need and many companies have already adopted this approach to great success. Legislation is now needed to require companies list flexible working options in their job adverts unless they have a valid business reason not to do so.

3. Reform Universal Credit
   

There are many challenges with Universal Credit, and how this interacts with childcare, and issues around the two-child limit. Reform to Universal Credit is critical to help lift families out of poverty.’

‘workingforwalthamstow.org.uk/content/sign-help-get-more-mums-politics

(whispers... I don't think most posters are interested in the actual situation. Too much fun posting own opinions on women work and babies, saying SC totally out of line silly making a fuss etc).

Paternity leave is good for the wellbeing and education of children as well as it benefiting the careers of women. It is also good for marriages. Yet, only 2% of UK dads use shared parental leave

Why doesn't her partner take parental leave and look after the baby whilst she goes back to work?

Because she's BF I imagine.

Their family circs could be anything.

She was working at home for first two weeks then back.

For many women that's too early to be away from baby for such a huge amount of time.

But I mean. Different people different opinions.

Those links just take me to her Twitter page, @ChattyLion, not specific tweets - and I follow her anyway (I generally think she does great work, I have nothing against her in general) and haven't seen her say anything that clarifies what points she's actually making. I'm not trying to be snide or sarcastic - this isn't some wide-eyed disingenuous 'I just don't understand', I really don't get the argument she's making. I don't see how any of those policy objectives are served in any way by bringing a baby into parliament. The ones around childcare and parental leave seem to me to be actively undermined by presenting taking the baby to work with you as a valid option, but again I'm genuinely not sure whether or not she's saying that she should be able to bring the baby with her just because (which seems to be implied by her saying he's no trouble etc) or whether she's saying it's a terrible compromise forced on her by the unique circumstances of MPs mat leave arrangements.

She was able. It's been allowed for a couple years or so.. there was a year long trial before it was formally brought in.

The rule was reversed quietly in September , so quietly the speaker didn't know.

That's why the speaker has ordered an enquiry/ review.. Which will be open and transparent.

She is understandably reacting to that changing and the way it was done. The speaker is not happy either.

This was all in the initial mainstream news coverage.

@CheeseMmmm

(whispers... I don't think most posters are interested in the actual situation. Too much fun posting own opinions on women work and babies, saying SC totally out of line silly making a fuss etc).

Yep...

That she's raising her other views on this general area is a side issue really.

What started it is the unexpected reversal and the way it was done. It was not due to her wanting a new thing 'just because'.

I have posted this info including links a few times though the thread.

I know it's fair enough not to read long threads.

On this thread though it's really interesting how everyone bar maybe two people have totally ignored it! (Not aimed at you just this thread is really weird!).

In fact there are at least two comments just up a bit that give this info.

But you seem to be saying the major issue is the process by which the decision to not allow babies in was made - which a) wasn't known at first - the details have emerged later (I appreciate that she did know she'd been able to do it with her older child) and b) isn't what I've seen Stella Creasy publicly identify as the issue. I also happen to agree with the decision.

Her very first tweet on the issue was saying that being told she couldn't bring the baby in showed that 'they didn't want mothers in the mother of parliaments' which seems to have introduced the absolute confusion that's dogged this thread, as she (and some posters) seem to be conflating banning babies and banning mothers.

Parliamentary maternity provisions are fantastic imo and that's what would encourage new mothers, not the prospect of having to tote themselves and their tiny baby into debates. A far better message would be to show 6 months + can be taken off with no effect on a woman's workload, position or prospects. I don't want new mothers having carry on as normal while sitting on a rubber ring wincing every time they move, or terrified in case the baby cries at a crucial moment. It's not civilised, we should be far better than that towards ALL women who have recently given birth.

Although if I were in charge the minimum age to be an MP would be 40, maybe higher, so it would be less of an issue anyway.

I've also read her Guardian piece, btw, (www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/25/baby-banned-parliament-women-politics-stella-creasy) and that was what really confused me, despite the fact that it was presumably more thought out than her tweets. She goes back and forth on whether she should just be on mat leave now or whether actually it's good, desirable and 'family friendly' for children to be allowed in parliament. She again notes that her baby was sleeping, which again seems irrelevant to me - he either needed to be there or he didn't, you can't make it dependent on the behaviour of a baby. And her insistence that she was denied maternity leave is a bit misleading - as is outlined in the much longer guardian piece from previously (www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/30/stella-creasy-lonely-maternity-cover-battle-women-should-be-able-have-kids-do-politics) she can have a proxy vote and it's her that decided she'd only take the cover for her constituency work if she could decide what her cover was paid.

I don't think the situation is ideal or even ok - I would like to see discussion of full maternity cover for MPs and how that could be achieved (and also in other situations - MPs who become very ill during their term basically either have to stop doing their jobs or resign, which seems even more unfair to me).

@HardbackWriter

Her very first tweet on the issue was saying that being told she couldn't bring the baby in showed that 'they didn't want mothers in the mother of parliaments' which seems to have introduced the absolute confusion that's dogged this thread, as she (and some posters) seem to be conflating banning babies and banning mothers.

Not only that, but banning people from bringing in their children to the workplace. It doesn't matter if you're a mother or a father or your baby is "good" or the spawn of satan.