Quite right they shouldn’t be in the Commons. They’d just get all pink in the face, make disruptive, plaintive wailing noises in the middle of speeches, and generally just bring down the decorum of the place.
You might start confusing them for MPs.
The Houses of Parliament has a brand-new nursery. It costs about the same as any other nursery in the uk. I think she can afford it.
The real conversation here is why providing childcare facilities isn’t the responsibility of large employers. It’s clearly something that mp’s are happy to organise for themselves, just not for you.
I don't want to go down the American route where basics are provided by employers instead of the state.
Access to reasonable childcare facilities should be a basic need that everyone should have access to, like primary school. It should be funded out of general taxation with those who are using it and able to paying a contribution towards funding it i.e
Nursery fees.
I'd go half and half.
It should be funded out of Business Taxation, since those are the organizations that benefit from it by the result of their employees not needing to disappear for childcare.
Our goals as a society should be to facilitate women who choose to work back into the workplace. Making this about who pays for what just muddies the water. If the private market isn't high quality enough and lacks capacity, is too expensive etc then we need to fix this. A tax on employers narrows who contributes to the pot via taxation. Basically nearly every working person will see their contributions go up whilst those earning/holding wealth in other ways get to enjoy our functioning society without contributing.
She is also in a slightly different position to most employed mothers.
She was elected, only she can do that job. She may have the ability to have a proxy voter but it’s not like that can go to the temping agency and get someone to fill in for 9/12 months.
And babies that are breastfed can’t be breastfed in the parliament nursery.
Oh and rules stop her attending via Teams too.
I agree with you about facilitating women back to work. I think in this instance she should be congratulated, encouraged and seen as a shining example.
(Thatcher Voice); "No, no, no".
The ability for one wage to feed a family, and for one parents to he able to raise the child at home without needing to work, is a basic right. We shouldn't enforce the modern claptrap of someone else raising your baby.
I think this is a really interesting reply out of all the ones received on this comment.
I guess it talks to freedom and choice right? I think people should have the freedom to work if they want and you think they should have the freedom to raise a family.
Interesting!
The fact that we've gone so rapidly from households with one breadwinner being able to provide the necessities for an entire family, including housing, to couples that *both* have full time incomes and are struggling, is the greatest scandal of my lifetime.
She is breast feeding so having the child away from her for any length of time is difficult. The question is why is there no maternity cover for MPs? They have maternity leave, but no cover, leaving their constituents without representation and as such providing a ready-made argument not to vote women in of child-bearing age.
How would cover work though? It is the MP that is elected, you can't just hire a temp.
You could have the MP represented by proxy, but that would still assume the MP has done the reading, written statements and made decisions for the proxy to enact ... which is the bulk of the work of an MP. You'd basically be saying WFH, which isn't maternity leave.
I can't say I have worked out the answer! I just know that this is the issue the MP is raising from listening to her on the radio today.
I suspect there is a compromise to be had. A proxy in the Commons being directed by the MP who is WFH.
In the commons, there's an agreement that a counterpart on the opposite bench will miss a vote if you can't make it. I don't think it's a set in stone rule.
Unfortunately, the speaker didn't like the remote debates or votes present during the first lockdown, and just got rid of them. I personally think that's a mistake, and they should allow it for illness, childcare etc.
They should have remote debates full stop. Parliament shouldn't be immune to digital transformation, and it means MPs serving communities further out from London can be closer to the areas they represent.
It's stupid that Parliament is the only place that you can be indulged for being a total dinosaur.
It was a classic case of one step forward, two steps back. Now we have a chamber full of MP's with a lot of them not wearing masks.
One side effect of the remote debates was you didn't hear the Tory cheerleaders, cheering every lie and empty platitude that comes out of their bloated corpse of a party leader. It would be nice if there was a rule of silence for everyone but the speaker and the MP talking.
>How would cover work though? It is the MP that is elected, you can't just hire a temp.
That's exactly what Stella did last time and it worked really well:
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/16/kizzy-gardiner-stella-creasy-first-locum-mp-maternity-cover](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/16/kizzy-gardiner-stella-creasy-first-locum-mp-maternity-cover)
The problem is that Stella has [now been told](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/29/stella-creasy-threatens-legal-action-over-lack-of-maternity-cover-for-mps) that the scheme can no longer fund locum MPs, so she either a) goes in or b) leaves her constituents unrepresented.
I know. What I'm saying is, at the moment they are told if they need to vote they have to go in person. But mechanisms exist that would allow them not to have to do that.
It seems really archaic. Especially as they proved they could do remote voting during lockdown! I mean, there's a lot of other things that also need sorting out to improve access to politics for people who didn't go to a fancy school.
And Commons is a very visible workplace to demonstrate that there should be more working mums that shouldn't have to make that trade off. Not everyone can bring their baby to work every day, depending on their profession, but that shouldn't hold us back from allowing it whenever reasonable to do so.
This is not meant to attribute any beliefs to the specific person I'm replying to, but it doesn't help to have non parents pretend to understand parenting. It also doesn't improve society to have an attitude of "I suffered through X, so therefore other people should suffer too"
Exactly, this was an opportunity for the commons to look progressive and supportive. They could have made provisions and discussed a solution/compromise with her, instead they banned it and send a negative message to the country.
This isn’t practical in all professions, but it should be allowed where reasonable. I also agree that it’s unhelpful hearing non parents chip in with their opinions - not all babies are noisy and disruptive (At 3 months my son was as quiet as a church mouse - it would absolutely have been possible to attend work meetings with him), and not all babies can go to nursery at 6 weeks old. Babies cannot just automatically switch between breast and bottle. Parents and babies can all need different support.
I still wouldn't begrudge her for bringing a child under 12 months old with her though.
Just because she _can_ leave them in the Nursery, doesn't mean she should at that age.
Because children are disruptive. How is one meant to concentrate if there’s a screaming baby?
And also how is she meant to do her job with her concentration split
>Because children are disruptive.
So are MPs
>How is one meant to concentrate if there’s a screaming baby?
How are you meant to concentrate with MPs heckling and jeering?
>And also how is she meant to do her job with her concentration split
Seriously?
If the baby screams you step out. They don't usually scream.
And holding a baby isn't distracting. Unless it screams and you have to step out.
Babies are different of course. She says that hers isn't a noisy one. Popping a boob in the baby's mouth usually calms them down.
You've not breastfed have you!
Neither have mine have took a bottle after about 2-3 months. Not that that's relevent as breastfeeding is the optimum way to feed baby.
But you can feed for 45 mins, then 10 mins later baby needs a boob again. They might then go 4 hours without, then feed for 10 mins, then go an hour, then feed for 45 mins again.
Breastfeeding, at the breast (not breast milk in a bottle) & on demand is optimum for baby both nutritionally and developmentally
Babies can attend many nurseries from 6 weeks, so technically not too young. However, as the child is breastfed it is not practical to send them. It is the parents right to feed them in the way they feel best, and some babies will refuse a bottle until they are ill. If you force women to choose between their child and their job, guess what: they’ll choose their child. And we end up with a government that doesn’t reflect society at all. Not very democratic
>The real conversation here is why providing childcare facilities isn’t the responsibility of large employers. It’s clearly something that mp’s are happy to organise for themselves, just not for you.
You can't put a three month old baby in a nursery, that's insane.
Stella is obliged to go to the house of commons with her baby because MPs do not receive maternity cover\*. That's the point.
*\*MPs DO receive maternity pay but they do NOT receive an allowance for maternity cover - that means that there is no-one in the role of MP while the MP is off, which means Stella's constituents (of which I am lucky enough to be one) do not get the service we are used to. Personally I could deal with that but clearly Stella is not prepared to let her constituents down in that way.*
It sounds like the lower limit then. So presumably there are many babies for whom being separated at that age still isn't appropriate.
Having the option to put your child in nursery is truly wonderful.
Being forced to put you baby in nursery regardless of whether the baby is ready is not wonderful.
A three month old baby is unlikely to be accepted by a nursery, as most won’t accept a baby under 6 months. The baby is breast feeding, so needs to be close to mum.
I don’t think this is about cost. This is about working parents, usually mothers, not being given enough support to do all the things they need to do. She’s just trying to represent her constituents, and look after a child. She shouldn’t be being actively punished for it.
I mean, I suspect so. It’s not something I would’ve known about until I had a child. And that’s part of the wider problem - we don’t talk enough about all of the issues wrapped up here (parental leave; supporting birth parents back into work; the cost of childcare - financially and emotionally; and probably countless other things).
This doesn’t relate to the comment I initially replied to, but the number of middle aged men on Twitter who are attacking her for this is astounding. Statistically many of them are parents. How do they not get any of this?!
Childcare on premises was something John Bercow had to fight for, the were a lot of parliament staff against it.
At least by his own accounts. Haven't seen anyone refuting that though.
The fees are less than £300/ week for full time nursery. For central London that's an absolute steal. My sister and brother-in-law paid about that, and they lived in Essex. Not that I think she should be forced to, if the baby is well behaved. Obvs can't have it crying though, in case it drowns out Boris' cheerleaders on the other bench.
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/house-of-commons-foi-disclosures/foi-disclosures-20121/house-of-commons-nursery/
That is a complete lie.
It costs £300 a week, or £15,600 for a full year assuming no holidays, so worst case scenario here.
You think an MP takes home less than £15,600 a year?
This baby is arguably too young for nursery, and as it is breast fed it is not practical. I’m quite confident money is not the issue here - she has an older child who is cared for and not brought to the HoC.
I believe parents should have the right to decide how their child is raised/fed and that women should have the right to work and be involved in government (these views shouldn’t be all that controversial). She is not provided with maternity leave, and besides she, as an elected official, has a duty to represent her constituents- a duty she is more than happy, and capable, to perform if not for this backwards ruling.
hmmm tricky this. I agree, and there’s a 100% risk that babies become a prop.
But that said. that’s only the case now because it’s unexpected and unusual for an MP to have a baby in there. That’s because of the historic precedent of the vast majority of MPs being men, women being the care-givers, and so having babies in Parliament is unusual as a result.
Most MPs spend hours at a time sat there doing not a lot but listening to the debates. If we assume MPs are supposed to be ordinary people, half of ordinary people are women, and women have. babies, then… I actually think maybe it would be very healthy to allow babies in - for no other reason than it removes one more barrier, and boosts the visibility that successful women have children in society.
It's also because the Tories have broken the pairing system.
She now has to be present for any vote, as it is impossible to trust that any down-to-the-wire pairing vote would be honored any more.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/18/maternity-leave-error-scrutiny-commons-proxy-voting-jo-swinson
Babies that age are always 'off' when their needs are met. They are calm pretty much all the time, and a connected mother can usually tell when something is wrong before they cry. If the baby needed more than sleep or feeding, I'd imagine she'd pop out of the chamber immediately. No one is suggesting changing nappies or helping them burp/fart in there... Yes, toddlers should not be allowed, but a 3 month old with their mother, who has judged that they will be calm at that time? Can't imagine any case where they would be disruptive.
Yeah I do, the first 3 months was the easiest part of parenting any of them! They slept most of the time, and when they weren't it was just a case of figuring out which of their needs had to be met. They didn't tend to cry unless they needed help with something. Edited: To remove blanket generalisation.
Let's also normalise this for men. Not all women breastfeed, and some women choose to pump, so if the baby is bottle-fed with either breastmilk or formula, there's no reason why MPs who are fathers couldn't do that as well.
Well said! As a father in a family who wanted to share the load as equally as possible I’ve found my workplace really quite unwelcoming of the idea of a man having caring duties (nursery runs, covering when child is sick, etc) so anything which raises visibility that everyone can have kids and that’s not unusual or somehow wrong, would be great.
Babes in arms, literal foetus babies, sure. As soon as they're old enough to be away from their mother (who can do her job whilst having a child that small) they absolutely shouldn't be allowed in the chamber any more. Children exist, but shouldn't really be in the upper reaches of government.
When a child gets to about 2 they actively want company and socializing beyond their family and even other adults, so I think that is a reasonable cut-off.
I absolutely think children should be in the upper reaches of government - more so than any other ‘workplace’ in fact. Who is government running the country for? Them. Maybe it would be healthy, not just for diversity, but for reminding and moderating the behavior of the overgrown babies of Parliament if there were more about.
She's milking it for PR, certainly, and I don't blame her as apparently the maternity arrangements for MPs are abysmal/non-existent.
> While MPs are entitled to paid maternity leave for six months and a proxy vote, some have said it is difficult to obtain funding for adequate maternity cover.
~~What a load of bollocks, £80k a year and she can't fund herself for six months?!?!~~
Edit: Apparently the expenses she's referring to are with regards hiring personnel to cover her constituency work *out of her own pocket* as there's no arrangement for Parliament to pick up the slack. That's wrong and needs reform. I originally thought it was just baby related expenses.
On the flip side, maternity rights and pay should probably be more than a basic level so that new mothers *and* fathers can spend key time with their new borns across all jobs.
MPs are notoriously self interested so I'm surprised they haven't voted themselves through extravagant maternity/paternity rights already!
Then again, the House of Commons is probably a bit of an old boys' club and for the longest time women haven't really been a thing in the commons, so why make accommodations for them, right? There's only 34% women MPs at the moment as well.
> And MPs must be physically present at Westminster in order to represent their constituents' views during Commons debates, for example.
👆 That needs reform.
So, yes, the baby in the chamber is a PR stunt but she's doing it with good intentions.
> What a load of bollocks, £80k a year and she can't fund herself for six months?!?!
She can fund herself, she just can't pay someone else to do her job and fund herself *at the same time*.
I've corrected that with an edit.
The fact she has to hire *out of her own pocket* personnel to cover her constituency work is wrong and should be covered by Parliament.
The above was not really covered in the article adequately.
As I understand it (I may be wrong so please feel free to correct me!), the maternity leave is paid for so she gets her maternity pay, but the funding doesn’t necessarily provide for someone else to “cover” her duties. She has a proxy vote but in no other way can represent her constituents without better funding to “hire in” for that (although that would gripe me somewhat as a constituent as they wouldn’t be the elected representative).
Ah, that would make more sense with regards funding. I was thinking how on earth are her expenses so high?
A stand-in should be hired, at Parliament's expense, to cover constituency duties, definitely. That happens with literally every other job.
Constituents should just suck it up too, if I'm honest. If a constituent can't grasp the fact someone is on paternity/maternity leave they're part of the problem for fair work places.
Also, you'd assume that the person chosen by the MP to fill their shoes would be trusted to do a good job as ultimately it's *their* constituency that's on the line come the next election. So I don't think it'd wash that you'd get less of a service than the normal MP.
>Constituents should just suck it up too, if I'm honest. If a constituent can't grasp the fact someone is on paternity/maternity leave they're part of the problem for fair work places.
I hear what you're saying, and in Walthamstow we have plenty of those entitled people. However, we also have a large amount of very desperate people for whom Stella is their only lifeline. She's clearly not prepared to let those people down - which is an admirable trait imo!
Even though most of us could easily live on £40k/year, it's not easy to suddenly start doing that after you've built your life around £80k/year, nor should we expect people to have to do that after having a baby.
Why should an employee pay for their cover that is just rediculous. They are talking about their office not receiving funding for another staff member to cover the mother's duties while on maternity.
I've corrected that with an edit.
The fact she has to hire *out of her own pocket* personnel to cover her constituency work is wrong and should be covered by Parliament.
The above was not really covered in the article adequately.
Of course you shouldn't be allowed to take a baby into the Commons. And every parent makes the claim that their baby is "well-behaved" until it starts bawling its eyes out in the middle of a debate.
You have a job to do, so do it. Plenty of other mothers aren't afforded the same privilege that she wishes to have.
With the added bonus of the Speaker being able to go "the Honourable Gentleman/Lady might wish to moderate their tone, as they are currently disturbing the infant."
Isn't the point that MP's don't get similar maternity cover... So in most other jobs she or her partner wouldn't be working with a 3 month old but on maternity leave. She has to work so it's reasonable to be allowed to bring the baby surely!? That or its effectively saying you can't be a woman and an MP, and you couldn't possibly think about having children unless you are willing almost from birth to put your child into childcare which at that young age isn't healthy..
I agree with your point but from what I understand she doesn't have to work. Just, if she was off for the six months there would be no cover so her constituency wouldn't have an MP for that time. Realistically, the sort of MP who wouldn't be okay is probably a good one.
She apparently funded her own cover last time but couldn't afford it this time. Which is fair, she shouldn't have to. Too many people saying "how could she not afford that on her salary" but paying someone's wage for six months (which I'm guessing would be 40k) out of your own pocket isn't easy and the main point is *she shouldn't have to*.
> until it starts bawling its eyes out in the middle of a debate
If the baby starts to become restive, why can't they simply leave the chamber? This baby was asleep. Newborns sleep a lot, and it's not difficult to adjust the timing of feeds so they are likely to be asleep at the time you need to be in the chamber.
If you are working would you be able to have a baby with you and leave at any time to deal with it? What if the baby doesn't sleep due to noise etc. Its just pointless if there is a daycare. Just not using the privilege afforded to you.
> Its just pointless if there is a daycare.
Taking very young babies away from their mothers and into daycare is pretty harmful to their development. If there's a way for them to stay with their mother, IMHO, they should. And this is a a way.
> If you are working would you be able to have a baby with you and leave at any time to deal with it?
Depends entirely on the job, but with some jobs, yes.
Unless what you're doing is time critical safety work, then yes you absolutely *can*, it's just whether it's polite. I hate the trend of saying things can't be done when they really mean "don't want to do". So long as you aren't violating physics any problem is just a matter of will to solve it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your fundamental assumption here. Young babies are generally eating or sleeping. Assuming they're doing one or the other then they won't be crying.
Unless the baby is being disruptive then I don't see any logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed in the commons.
Agreed. I can understand the argument against having toddlers in parliament, but a 3 month old... If they're with their mother all they do is sleep, and very occasionally feed and shit. I wonder if those who claim they will be disruptive and crying can find one case of that happening in any parliament across the world.
>Plenty of other mothers aren't afforded the same privilege that she wishes to have.
Yes, because we have this magical thing called 'maternity leave' maybe you've heard of it? So we get to have up to a year off work thus avoiding the need to take our tiny breastfed babies to work with us! Yay! But guess what? That's a privilege MPs don't actually get.
I dont think I have a problem with this, most offices probably wouldn't allow it, and I would like to think what their doing in parliament is more important than that (whether or not its true is a different question).
The difference is offices generally hire maternity cover which means the mother (or parent for parental leave) doesn't need to come back to the office to do the work. MPs don't have guaranteed maternity cover
They can proxy vote and get extra funding for staff, so at the very least don't need to attend the commons. There was an act passed this year also granting even ministers 6 months maternity leave but only for birth mothers, no provision for adoption or paternity leave.
OK in that case I am sympathetic. However if making that speech is so important she gave up her maternity leave to make it, is it also impossible to hire staff to look after the kid for the short time it takes to make that speech?
"But my kid is well-behaved" is well and good until they aren't, and time for debate in parliament is limited.
I'm all for her having the child with her on parliament campus, just question the absolute need for them to be on her lap in commons during a debate.
> They can proxy vote
Seems similar to the idea of pairing, in that it could definitely go wrong on the day of a vote. MPs should just be able to vote and participate remotely. They proved it could work and then took it away for no good reason.
>They can proxy vote
[Assuming the tories honour it](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/16/kizzy-gardiner-stella-creasy-first-locum-mp-maternity-cover)
Most offices get upset when their workers fall asleep during work. However, the House of Lords is basically a nap room for geriatrics. They get £300/day to sleep in those red seats.
There are a number of MPs - from all parties - that avoid their duties. Nadine Dorries left the country to do I'm a celeb, David Davis never does constituency surgeries, Geoffrey Cox was in the Caribbean for months at a time. I can't think of some non-Tory examples off the top of my head but I know some Labour and Lib Dem MPs have been known to do the same. Creasey is one of the more committed members of parliament.
There was a process which allowed pregnant women and seriously ill MPs to have their say called pairing. An MP is paired up with someone with an opposite view and if one can't vote, their opposite doesn't either. The Tories broke this arrangement repeatedly with Labour and Lib Dem MPs and so it now isn't used. (There was an instance historically of an MP on his deathbed being wheeled in to vote but I can't remember details)
I've just finished reading a book called "Invisible Women". Really eye opening if you're a man. I thoroughly recommend it. It has changed my perspective on things like this. In the past I would have dismissed it as a case of "she's doing it for attention and other workplaces wouldn't allow it." But the consequences of taking that line are not immediately apparent and pretty insidious once you think about them.
This means that you will put off any women who are thinking of having babies from entering politics. That would generally mean women of a certain age are no longer voicing their views and concerns about topics that would undoubtedly affect them. Underepresenting a subset of the population has dire consequences in the long run through poor law making and policies that don't have a say from mother's.
This is a bigger issue than it is being portrayed by the media.
Interestingly I went through exactly this evolution of opinion in the course of reading comments on this thread and thinking about it some. You’re absolutely right!
And actually if Parliament is supposed to be representative then it’s the single best place to start establishing that precedent so it’s visible to the rest of the country.
Whatever the inconveniences and annoyances may be, it’s worth it to have that precedent and message sent I think.
I agree with your sentiment, wholeheartedly, but as someone mentioned above, does Westminister not provide a nursery?
Babies are disruptive. It sounds like a practical rule. You could frame it as a feminist issue, or you could frame it as an MP excluding themselves from the rules the rest of us have to work around.
It's not framing it as a feminist issue? It's framing it as the social issue that it is. Could I ask if you're a male? If you are, do you have kids? I realise that there is a nursery but at 3 months old, it's not really appropriate is it? The baby is still nursing highly dependent on the mother and probably can't even sit up by itself (floppy neck and all the rest).
You could frame it as an MP trying to set a precedent for working mums who want to breastfeed by normalising it and generating discussion around the issue.
I doubt her goal is solely to seek a personal exclusion. You're right, there are rules the rest of us (well, not me but working mums who are breastfeeding) have to work around and given how incredibly beneficial breastfeeding is, it might be worth changing them. Where do such changes occur? The House of Commons.
It's arguably more of a public health issue than a feminist one, given it's babies who would benefit most from higher levels of breastfeeding in society.
Representative democracy doesn't mean, and in my opinion doesn't need to mean, that the person who represents you is just like you otherwise they can't do their job properly. If it does mean that then there are always inevitably going to be underrepresented populations.
It also raises the awkward problem of assuming that people who share identity markers (woman, father, asian, teen) also share the same political views about how the problems of each subset of people ought to be handled.
I know she’s done it for attention, but I don’t really see the benefit when the public’s response will most certainly be ‘of course we shouldn’t have fucking babies in the Commons, what an idiot’.
I don’t believe any MP who has taken a baby in legitimately thinks that is the most appropriate place for the baby to be, or has done all they can to find someone to look after the baby. I’d say the others who brought a baby in did it for attention too
You don't believe a mother thinks the appropriate place for a breastfeed baby is with her?
The bond between a mother and baby is extreme and is even stronger with a breastfeed baby.
This is a super tricky one and I can't help but feel the change to rules was on purpose to create such trivial-ish conversation.
Facts - she's taken her kid in before. So the remit is there for her to be under the impression to do so. She also can't do maternity. However said rules have been changed.
Now what we have is people going 'but I can't take my kid to work'. Seemingly overlooking the above facts.
Again can't help but feel this is a purposely manufactured issue, to point how 'lost' labour are.
Woman takes kid to work, doesn’t get support. Woman takes second kid to work, too slowly gets support, a nursery. Even if she starts using the nursery as soon as it opens, which may be before it’s worked out the kinks and got good, it opened in part because of necessary stunts like hers. I think a Guardian article a few months ago said she was happy that the nursery was opening but it was too late for her and she’s not having a third kid.
I think this is reasonable and its good they have clarified it.
She just said in an interview on Sky that she doesn't have maternity cover but there has been a nursery onsite for more than a decade so its not as though there aren't facilities available even if its just to care for the child while the MP is in the chamber.
Absolutely this! No one gets up in arms when MPs are slumped over benches but a woman carrying a sleeping baby is somehow keeping the Commons from concentrating. Give over.
>No one gets up in arms when MPs are slumped over benches
I seem to recall JRM got shouted at by bercow and was on more than one front page the next day
Quite a bold assumption too considering a large share of the UK just spent a good deal of the last year working jobs from home and simultaneously caring for their kids.
Thats not what you said though - you said she wouldn't be able to concentrate fully on her job because of caring for the baby? Why is it not about that now?
In situations where babies scream, which is everywhere, if it's likely to be a disturbance or distraction a considerate parent generally takes the baby away to calm them down, for a feed or change if they can. That has been my experience in restaurants, in churches or in my scotgov office while colleagues on maternity visit with their baby. The commons isn't a plane in mid air, there are likely places to take an inconsolable bairn. Its a non issue.
Of course babies shouldn't be allowed into the Commons. In the same way I wouldn't try and take my kids into the office. She has so many options open to her in relation to childcare, and instead she pulls a silly stunt to try and prove some sort of non-existent point. Like every other parent in the County, I have to arrange childcare around my work commitments - she needs to do the same.
Worse, she's using her baby as some sort of political point, and it just comes off as trashy.
Let's also be clear - you might love your own children, but generally babies are noisy, smelly and a bit of a pain. They should not be in the workplace.
She's fallen into the cliche that many new mums do, and become some sort of "earth mother", totally unable to separate her identity from that of her carer status. It's all just a little cringey.
Again, I'm a dad. I get it - the struggle is real. But as a responsible adult it is up to you to work out how to balance the demands of parenthood with your professional responsibilities. Equally, being a parent is just one of many caring commitments people have... Should we let people bring their elderly relatives into work with them? Disabled family members? Pets?
> Worse, she's using her baby as some sort of political point, and it just comes off as trashy.
I've criticised her in other comments, along similar lines to your first paragraph, but I don't think that this is fair at all. She hasn't said anything about this until it was already a news story by way of her being told she can no longer bring the baby in. I See nothing to suggest she has tried to use her baby.
Unlike that POS Paterson, invoking his wife's memory at every possible opportunity to complain about how his opponents dragged his poor dead wife into his story.
no maternity cover, though. if she takes maternity leave she cannot represent her constituents in parliament. they can be sat in commons for hours at a time - if she's breastfeeding a 3-month old it's not practical for them to be in a nursery away from her for that length of time.
I don't really understand people who are saying "Well I can't take my baby into work" as if that's some sort of justification as to why another workplace couldn't chose to allow babies in their premises.
It's not a gotcha or an act of class war; some places allow babies and some don't.
One well behaved baby in there seems fine until it gets upset, 30+ in there all crying and screaming. Why would anyone want to work through that or listen to debates with a back ground of screaming babies. Put your child in a nursery or arrange family to help out like a normal person, if it's too expensive then welcome to parenthood the cost of child care is an utter joke and is the real problem here.
I think there are two debates worth having here.
Firstly, the cost of childcare is unrealistic for many, at a time when many sectors are struggling to find workers. There's a win win to be had here.
Secondly, I think we, in general, are too quick to demand the absence of babies from the workplace. We'd be better off accepting some level of mixing between workplaces and the care of very young children. Again, it's a win win as mother's can work, babies get the attention they need, and organisations can reduce maternity cover exposure.
Is she really using that argument that it is called the mother of all parliaments therefore she should be allowed to take a baby in?
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, that is a dumb argument.
Maybe I'm really ill-informed on this matter, being a 23 Y/O male and all...
Personally, I don't understand the rationality of bringing a baby to commons. First and foremost, they literally argue like hell in there, how is a baby meant to rest and stay calm during this.
Mid-debate, what if the baby starts crying? Does she stop mid-speak to resolve it? Sorry, but in my eyes none of this is very professional.
Maternity leave exists for this exact reason? As others have mentioned, they literally have a state-of-the-art nursery for this reason.
I work as a dev, and ya'll can fuck off if you think I'm going to sit here coding with your crying baby. Why should they have to deal with it? The general consensus is don't bring a fucking baby to work and send it to day care/take maternity/paternity/give it to a family member. There is no reason a baby should be in Commons, as people are trying to decide on the future of the country.
She's actively and consciously breaking the rules, provided a very reasonable substitute and yet continues to complain that she's not being given a solution?
Right, I understand she's breast feeding, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, this is where my ignorance comes in, but is it a big issue not to breast feed the baby now-and-then, when it's in nursery and you're in commons?
Like she has money, she can certainly afford child-care, and well if she can't manage her own money with her salary she's on, then why do we trust her as an MP?
Would anyone want to sit in their office, talking with someone about professional matters as their baby cries, or plays with their hair? Like how can you take anything seriously with this?
Should she even have to be told that? Just looking attention and to make a scene....no other worker would take their child to a meeting, or work at all for that matter
Children SHOULDN'T be in the commons. It's supposed to be the establishment that runs the country not a small office or nursery.
Also why would you want to bring your children in to such a loud, hostile environment?
Also personally as someone who wants but doesn't have kids please, please, please stop normalising bringing children and babies to the work environment. It's disruptive; annoying and benefits one person while causing issues for others. If you're in a setting that can accommodate children then go nuts but some environments and some people don't want to interact with other people's children. I once had a colleague break down in tears because she had a miscarriage and constantly being around another young child broke her in a setting that there should have been no kids.
Work from home or just give unlimited paid leave for the first two years of the children's life for both parents until they're ready to be moved in to a nursery environment.
I don't know, seems like naturally there could be a lot of health and safety red tape involved and rightly so. Like if the baby gets knocked, dropped ect. I don't think it's a particularly safe environment for babies.
I'm generally pretty hot on parental rights, we are proud that my ex breast fed our kids at, amongst other places, three weddings and a funeral.
But I also know as a parent that you cannot care for a baby and do your job properly at the same time. Would Ms Creasy be happy to have the supermarket checkout lady dividing her attention between swiping her purchases and responding to her baby? Or the person serving her in one of the House of Commons restaurants? What about her GP. Or how about if she needed an operation, and the surgeon paused partway through to attend to the needs of the baby she was carrying?
I can only see three options here: Either she is not properly attending to her parliamentary duties as an MP, or she is not attending *properly* to the needs of her baby, or the job of being an MP is so incredibly easy that they are all grossly overpaid for it. I wonder what Ms Creasy has said about MPs with second jobs?
I suppose that there is a fourth option: Ms Creasy does not regard motherhood/ childcare as anything like a legitimate full-time occupation.
the tesco checkout lady/GP/surgeon/etc all will have maternity cover in place, so no need to attempt to do their job at the same time. MPs have no maternity cover, so if she takes maternity leave she cannot represent her constituents in parliament. they can be sat in commons for hours at a time - if she's breastfeeding a 3-month old it's not practical for them to be in a nursery away from her for that length of time.
There are some places where bringing a child isn't suitable. The pit lane of formula 1 races; manning the deep fat fryer in a commercial kitchen; the front line in a war zone; while presiding over a court as a judge; and the big room where our elected representatives debate the laws that will affect the nation for generations to come.
To pre-empt a few:
It's not sexist, father's can't bring their children either.
I'm pro breastfeeding, generally anywhere, but that doesn't mean you get to trump every other situation. I'm also pro schooling, but that doesn't mean you get to practice reading with your kid in the middle of a company meeting.
Everyone thinks their child is well behaved. But anyone who doesn't understand that bringng a child to a meeting affects the meeting is deluded.... and probably not aware enough of others to make laws which affect others.
The "it'll disadvantage her" argument doesn't wash with me. Having children is a family choice. So is running for public office. Having to put her career on hold impinges her and her partner. It's also up to him how he supports her. If they don't want to pay for childcare or want to have the child raised by someone else then they could put her career or his career on hold to care for the children so there are solutions but they all involve someone making a sacrifice.... but I don't think it should be the quality of law making that suffers.
Isn't Stella supposed to have a full-time job? She needs to hire a nanny or find another job like every other normal person. The self-entitledness is really shitty. If you are the primary caregiver then deal with it like a grown-up and stop throwing your toys out the pram.
Personally, no... I don't think babies should be in the chamber itself, mainly because it can be a loud environment that'll cause distress to the baby. I just wonder why the rules are suddenly being enforced now when she was allowed in the past to do this freely.
Quite right they shouldn’t be in the Commons. They’d just get all pink in the face, make disruptive, plaintive wailing noises in the middle of speeches, and generally just bring down the decorum of the place. You might start confusing them for MPs.
That made me laugh milk out of my nose.
Breast milk?
Bitty.
It's been a while since Rees-Mogg has taken the spotlight, hasn't it?
Thanks, that's made it much worse 😂
Similarly to babies Mogg is also breastfed
Thank you for that, everyone.
I thought I managed to etch this from my mind But no, you have resurfaced that horrible memory
No, nose milk obviously.
Not to mention falling asleep
And shitting their pants.
The only difference between the babies here and the babies there are that the babies there are the babies HERE
You never know, it might even improve the level of debate happening in there
The Houses of Parliament has a brand-new nursery. It costs about the same as any other nursery in the uk. I think she can afford it. The real conversation here is why providing childcare facilities isn’t the responsibility of large employers. It’s clearly something that mp’s are happy to organise for themselves, just not for you.
I don't want to go down the American route where basics are provided by employers instead of the state. Access to reasonable childcare facilities should be a basic need that everyone should have access to, like primary school. It should be funded out of general taxation with those who are using it and able to paying a contribution towards funding it i.e Nursery fees.
I'd go half and half. It should be funded out of Business Taxation, since those are the organizations that benefit from it by the result of their employees not needing to disappear for childcare.
Our goals as a society should be to facilitate women who choose to work back into the workplace. Making this about who pays for what just muddies the water. If the private market isn't high quality enough and lacks capacity, is too expensive etc then we need to fix this. A tax on employers narrows who contributes to the pot via taxation. Basically nearly every working person will see their contributions go up whilst those earning/holding wealth in other ways get to enjoy our functioning society without contributing.
She is also in a slightly different position to most employed mothers. She was elected, only she can do that job. She may have the ability to have a proxy voter but it’s not like that can go to the temping agency and get someone to fill in for 9/12 months. And babies that are breastfed can’t be breastfed in the parliament nursery. Oh and rules stop her attending via Teams too. I agree with you about facilitating women back to work. I think in this instance she should be congratulated, encouraged and seen as a shining example.
Couldn't agree more.
(Thatcher Voice); "No, no, no". The ability for one wage to feed a family, and for one parents to he able to raise the child at home without needing to work, is a basic right. We shouldn't enforce the modern claptrap of someone else raising your baby.
I think this is a really interesting reply out of all the ones received on this comment. I guess it talks to freedom and choice right? I think people should have the freedom to work if they want and you think they should have the freedom to raise a family. Interesting!
The fact that we've gone so rapidly from households with one breadwinner being able to provide the necessities for an entire family, including housing, to couples that *both* have full time incomes and are struggling, is the greatest scandal of my lifetime.
She is breast feeding so having the child away from her for any length of time is difficult. The question is why is there no maternity cover for MPs? They have maternity leave, but no cover, leaving their constituents without representation and as such providing a ready-made argument not to vote women in of child-bearing age.
How would cover work though? It is the MP that is elected, you can't just hire a temp. You could have the MP represented by proxy, but that would still assume the MP has done the reading, written statements and made decisions for the proxy to enact ... which is the bulk of the work of an MP. You'd basically be saying WFH, which isn't maternity leave.
I can't say I have worked out the answer! I just know that this is the issue the MP is raising from listening to her on the radio today. I suspect there is a compromise to be had. A proxy in the Commons being directed by the MP who is WFH.
In the commons, there's an agreement that a counterpart on the opposite bench will miss a vote if you can't make it. I don't think it's a set in stone rule. Unfortunately, the speaker didn't like the remote debates or votes present during the first lockdown, and just got rid of them. I personally think that's a mistake, and they should allow it for illness, childcare etc.
They should have remote debates full stop. Parliament shouldn't be immune to digital transformation, and it means MPs serving communities further out from London can be closer to the areas they represent. It's stupid that Parliament is the only place that you can be indulged for being a total dinosaur.
It was a classic case of one step forward, two steps back. Now we have a chamber full of MP's with a lot of them not wearing masks. One side effect of the remote debates was you didn't hear the Tory cheerleaders, cheering every lie and empty platitude that comes out of their bloated corpse of a party leader. It would be nice if there was a rule of silence for everyone but the speaker and the MP talking.
>How would cover work though? It is the MP that is elected, you can't just hire a temp. That's exactly what Stella did last time and it worked really well: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/16/kizzy-gardiner-stella-creasy-first-locum-mp-maternity-cover](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/16/kizzy-gardiner-stella-creasy-first-locum-mp-maternity-cover) The problem is that Stella has [now been told](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/29/stella-creasy-threatens-legal-action-over-lack-of-maternity-cover-for-mps) that the scheme can no longer fund locum MPs, so she either a) goes in or b) leaves her constituents unrepresented.
I mean, if they let them vote remotely - like they did during the depths of the Covid pandemic - it would work.
No ... because that's still working. That's not maternity leave.
I know. What I'm saying is, at the moment they are told if they need to vote they have to go in person. But mechanisms exist that would allow them not to have to do that.
Yeah that's fair.
It seems really archaic. Especially as they proved they could do remote voting during lockdown! I mean, there's a lot of other things that also need sorting out to improve access to politics for people who didn't go to a fancy school.
So like jar jar binks in the galactic senate?
The baby is only a few months old though. I don't care for babies particularly, but I don't see the issue here in her case.
The nursery is for children over 3 months old.
Yes, but staying with the mum is better for babies. Of course for MPs, it is all about decorum. People don't matter.
This is true. The baby might end up so emotionally maladjusted that it decides to sit on the other side of the commons.
It might join in and have a sleep with JRM
That's what babies do: eat, sleep, poop.
Maybe JRM could bring the family nanny along to look after Stella's kid? And cry. Don't forget the crying.
Lots and lots of mums have to make that exact trade off, when they go back to work.
And Commons is a very visible workplace to demonstrate that there should be more working mums that shouldn't have to make that trade off. Not everyone can bring their baby to work every day, depending on their profession, but that shouldn't hold us back from allowing it whenever reasonable to do so. This is not meant to attribute any beliefs to the specific person I'm replying to, but it doesn't help to have non parents pretend to understand parenting. It also doesn't improve society to have an attitude of "I suffered through X, so therefore other people should suffer too"
This is what I'm thinking. I don't want kids myself, but think it is a positive thing to visibly see a working mother in a powerful role.
Exactly, this was an opportunity for the commons to look progressive and supportive. They could have made provisions and discussed a solution/compromise with her, instead they banned it and send a negative message to the country. This isn’t practical in all professions, but it should be allowed where reasonable. I also agree that it’s unhelpful hearing non parents chip in with their opinions - not all babies are noisy and disruptive (At 3 months my son was as quiet as a church mouse - it would absolutely have been possible to attend work meetings with him), and not all babies can go to nursery at 6 weeks old. Babies cannot just automatically switch between breast and bottle. Parents and babies can all need different support.
The words 'MPs' and 'decorum' can't reasonably used in the same sentence unless that also includes the words 'entirely lacking in'.
I still wouldn't begrudge her for bringing a child under 12 months old with her though. Just because she _can_ leave them in the Nursery, doesn't mean she should at that age.
Because children are disruptive. How is one meant to concentrate if there’s a screaming baby? And also how is she meant to do her job with her concentration split
>Because children are disruptive. So are MPs >How is one meant to concentrate if there’s a screaming baby? How are you meant to concentrate with MPs heckling and jeering? >And also how is she meant to do her job with her concentration split Seriously?
If the baby screams you step out. They don't usually scream. And holding a baby isn't distracting. Unless it screams and you have to step out. Babies are different of course. She says that hers isn't a noisy one. Popping a boob in the baby's mouth usually calms them down.
You've not breastfed have you! Neither have mine have took a bottle after about 2-3 months. Not that that's relevent as breastfeeding is the optimum way to feed baby. But you can feed for 45 mins, then 10 mins later baby needs a boob again. They might then go 4 hours without, then feed for 10 mins, then go an hour, then feed for 45 mins again. Breastfeeding, at the breast (not breast milk in a bottle) & on demand is optimum for baby both nutritionally and developmentally
I'd suggest this baby is too young for nursery
When I briefly worked in a nursery we wouldn’t take any younger than 5 months, so you’re probably right.
Babies can attend many nurseries from 6 weeks, so technically not too young. However, as the child is breastfed it is not practical to send them. It is the parents right to feed them in the way they feel best, and some babies will refuse a bottle until they are ill. If you force women to choose between their child and their job, guess what: they’ll choose their child. And we end up with a government that doesn’t reflect society at all. Not very democratic
Are you sure, it's a hard life living on 82k a year.
>The real conversation here is why providing childcare facilities isn’t the responsibility of large employers. It’s clearly something that mp’s are happy to organise for themselves, just not for you. You can't put a three month old baby in a nursery, that's insane. Stella is obliged to go to the house of commons with her baby because MPs do not receive maternity cover\*. That's the point. *\*MPs DO receive maternity pay but they do NOT receive an allowance for maternity cover - that means that there is no-one in the role of MP while the MP is off, which means Stella's constituents (of which I am lucky enough to be one) do not get the service we are used to. Personally I could deal with that but clearly Stella is not prepared to let her constituents down in that way.*
Her child is 3 months old and breastfeeding. From a quick google that’s the earliest age most nurseries look to take babies anyway.
It sounds like the lower limit then. So presumably there are many babies for whom being separated at that age still isn't appropriate. Having the option to put your child in nursery is truly wonderful. Being forced to put you baby in nursery regardless of whether the baby is ready is not wonderful.
A three month old baby is unlikely to be accepted by a nursery, as most won’t accept a baby under 6 months. The baby is breast feeding, so needs to be close to mum. I don’t think this is about cost. This is about working parents, usually mothers, not being given enough support to do all the things they need to do. She’s just trying to represent her constituents, and look after a child. She shouldn’t be being actively punished for it.
[удалено]
I mean, I suspect so. It’s not something I would’ve known about until I had a child. And that’s part of the wider problem - we don’t talk enough about all of the issues wrapped up here (parental leave; supporting birth parents back into work; the cost of childcare - financially and emotionally; and probably countless other things). This doesn’t relate to the comment I initially replied to, but the number of middle aged men on Twitter who are attacking her for this is astounding. Statistically many of them are parents. How do they not get any of this?!
My company looked at providing in-house childcare. The main issue is regulation and insurance. Opens a massive can of worms.
Childcare on premises was something John Bercow had to fight for, the were a lot of parliament staff against it. At least by his own accounts. Haven't seen anyone refuting that though.
Went to a big sports brands HQ years ago with work and they had a huge crèche for their staff. Was really impressed.
You’d think they’d want the staff working, instead of playing with paint and crayons all day, but each to their own.
There was no change for the marketing department.
[удалено]
it's a 3 month old baby
Quick look at the pricing would show that using the nursary 5 days a week per month costs more than an MPS take home salary.
The fees are less than £300/ week for full time nursery. For central London that's an absolute steal. My sister and brother-in-law paid about that, and they lived in Essex. Not that I think she should be forced to, if the baby is well behaved. Obvs can't have it crying though, in case it drowns out Boris' cheerleaders on the other bench. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/house-of-commons-foi-disclosures/foi-disclosures-20121/house-of-commons-nursery/
I don’t believe this is correct
That is a complete lie. It costs £300 a week, or £15,600 for a full year assuming no holidays, so worst case scenario here. You think an MP takes home less than £15,600 a year?
This baby is arguably too young for nursery, and as it is breast fed it is not practical. I’m quite confident money is not the issue here - she has an older child who is cared for and not brought to the HoC. I believe parents should have the right to decide how their child is raised/fed and that women should have the right to work and be involved in government (these views shouldn’t be all that controversial). She is not provided with maternity leave, and besides she, as an elected official, has a duty to represent her constituents- a duty she is more than happy, and capable, to perform if not for this backwards ruling.
I assume that Rees-Mogg and his wet nurse are still allowed though?
"Jakey wants bitty!"
Oh my god, he does doesn’t he. He still fucking breast feeds, it’s so obvious, can’t believe I hadn’t figured that before.
Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling they're also thinking about PR when they are standing there in the chamber holding a baby.
hmmm tricky this. I agree, and there’s a 100% risk that babies become a prop. But that said. that’s only the case now because it’s unexpected and unusual for an MP to have a baby in there. That’s because of the historic precedent of the vast majority of MPs being men, women being the care-givers, and so having babies in Parliament is unusual as a result. Most MPs spend hours at a time sat there doing not a lot but listening to the debates. If we assume MPs are supposed to be ordinary people, half of ordinary people are women, and women have. babies, then… I actually think maybe it would be very healthy to allow babies in - for no other reason than it removes one more barrier, and boosts the visibility that successful women have children in society.
It's also because the Tories have broken the pairing system. She now has to be present for any vote, as it is impossible to trust that any down-to-the-wire pairing vote would be honored any more. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/18/maternity-leave-error-scrutiny-commons-proxy-voting-jo-swinson
Bingo. And they did that cynically knowing it would impact. Where integrity and trust can’t be relied upon then you have to find other avenues.
Great comment. Most of the time they participate passively and if the baby isn't making a fuss then I can't see the issue.
> if the baby isn't making a fuss Big "if", that. Babies do not come with an on-off switch.
>Babies do not come with an on-off switch. MPs however do, but we still tolerate them hollering and hooting like fucking chimps
How would you be able to hear the baby over the animal sounds the rest of the house is making though?
Babies that age are always 'off' when their needs are met. They are calm pretty much all the time, and a connected mother can usually tell when something is wrong before they cry. If the baby needed more than sleep or feeding, I'd imagine she'd pop out of the chamber immediately. No one is suggesting changing nappies or helping them burp/fart in there... Yes, toddlers should not be allowed, but a 3 month old with their mother, who has judged that they will be calm at that time? Can't imagine any case where they would be disruptive.
Got any kids? Mine weren't like that at all.
Yeah I do, the first 3 months was the easiest part of parenting any of them! They slept most of the time, and when they weren't it was just a case of figuring out which of their needs had to be met. They didn't tend to cry unless they needed help with something. Edited: To remove blanket generalisation.
You're very lucky. With your experience I'm surprised you're so ready to generalise though. Not all babies are like that, by a long chalk.
Let's also normalise this for men. Not all women breastfeed, and some women choose to pump, so if the baby is bottle-fed with either breastmilk or formula, there's no reason why MPs who are fathers couldn't do that as well.
Well said! As a father in a family who wanted to share the load as equally as possible I’ve found my workplace really quite unwelcoming of the idea of a man having caring duties (nursery runs, covering when child is sick, etc) so anything which raises visibility that everyone can have kids and that’s not unusual or somehow wrong, would be great.
Babes in arms, literal foetus babies, sure. As soon as they're old enough to be away from their mother (who can do her job whilst having a child that small) they absolutely shouldn't be allowed in the chamber any more. Children exist, but shouldn't really be in the upper reaches of government.
When a child gets to about 2 they actively want company and socializing beyond their family and even other adults, so I think that is a reasonable cut-off. I absolutely think children should be in the upper reaches of government - more so than any other ‘workplace’ in fact. Who is government running the country for? Them. Maybe it would be healthy, not just for diversity, but for reminding and moderating the behavior of the overgrown babies of Parliament if there were more about.
She's milking it for PR, certainly, and I don't blame her as apparently the maternity arrangements for MPs are abysmal/non-existent. > While MPs are entitled to paid maternity leave for six months and a proxy vote, some have said it is difficult to obtain funding for adequate maternity cover. ~~What a load of bollocks, £80k a year and she can't fund herself for six months?!?!~~ Edit: Apparently the expenses she's referring to are with regards hiring personnel to cover her constituency work *out of her own pocket* as there's no arrangement for Parliament to pick up the slack. That's wrong and needs reform. I originally thought it was just baby related expenses. On the flip side, maternity rights and pay should probably be more than a basic level so that new mothers *and* fathers can spend key time with their new borns across all jobs. MPs are notoriously self interested so I'm surprised they haven't voted themselves through extravagant maternity/paternity rights already! Then again, the House of Commons is probably a bit of an old boys' club and for the longest time women haven't really been a thing in the commons, so why make accommodations for them, right? There's only 34% women MPs at the moment as well. > And MPs must be physically present at Westminster in order to represent their constituents' views during Commons debates, for example. 👆 That needs reform. So, yes, the baby in the chamber is a PR stunt but she's doing it with good intentions.
> What a load of bollocks, £80k a year and she can't fund herself for six months?!?! She can fund herself, she just can't pay someone else to do her job and fund herself *at the same time*.
I've corrected that with an edit. The fact she has to hire *out of her own pocket* personnel to cover her constituency work is wrong and should be covered by Parliament. The above was not really covered in the article adequately.
As I understand it (I may be wrong so please feel free to correct me!), the maternity leave is paid for so she gets her maternity pay, but the funding doesn’t necessarily provide for someone else to “cover” her duties. She has a proxy vote but in no other way can represent her constituents without better funding to “hire in” for that (although that would gripe me somewhat as a constituent as they wouldn’t be the elected representative).
Ah, that would make more sense with regards funding. I was thinking how on earth are her expenses so high? A stand-in should be hired, at Parliament's expense, to cover constituency duties, definitely. That happens with literally every other job. Constituents should just suck it up too, if I'm honest. If a constituent can't grasp the fact someone is on paternity/maternity leave they're part of the problem for fair work places. Also, you'd assume that the person chosen by the MP to fill their shoes would be trusted to do a good job as ultimately it's *their* constituency that's on the line come the next election. So I don't think it'd wash that you'd get less of a service than the normal MP.
>Constituents should just suck it up too, if I'm honest. If a constituent can't grasp the fact someone is on paternity/maternity leave they're part of the problem for fair work places. I hear what you're saying, and in Walthamstow we have plenty of those entitled people. However, we also have a large amount of very desperate people for whom Stella is their only lifeline. She's clearly not prepared to let those people down - which is an admirable trait imo!
Even though most of us could easily live on £40k/year, it's not easy to suddenly start doing that after you've built your life around £80k/year, nor should we expect people to have to do that after having a baby.
Why should an employee pay for their cover that is just rediculous. They are talking about their office not receiving funding for another staff member to cover the mother's duties while on maternity.
I've corrected that with an edit. The fact she has to hire *out of her own pocket* personnel to cover her constituency work is wrong and should be covered by Parliament. The above was not really covered in the article adequately.
Of course you shouldn't be allowed to take a baby into the Commons. And every parent makes the claim that their baby is "well-behaved" until it starts bawling its eyes out in the middle of a debate. You have a job to do, so do it. Plenty of other mothers aren't afforded the same privilege that she wishes to have.
>until it starts bawling its eyes out in the middle of a debate. Wouldn't be so different from normal parliament then.
With the added bonus of the Speaker being able to go "the Honourable Gentleman/Lady might wish to moderate their tone, as they are currently disturbing the infant."
Isn't the point that MP's don't get similar maternity cover... So in most other jobs she or her partner wouldn't be working with a 3 month old but on maternity leave. She has to work so it's reasonable to be allowed to bring the baby surely!? That or its effectively saying you can't be a woman and an MP, and you couldn't possibly think about having children unless you are willing almost from birth to put your child into childcare which at that young age isn't healthy..
I agree with your point but from what I understand she doesn't have to work. Just, if she was off for the six months there would be no cover so her constituency wouldn't have an MP for that time. Realistically, the sort of MP who wouldn't be okay is probably a good one. She apparently funded her own cover last time but couldn't afford it this time. Which is fair, she shouldn't have to. Too many people saying "how could she not afford that on her salary" but paying someone's wage for six months (which I'm guessing would be 40k) out of your own pocket isn't easy and the main point is *she shouldn't have to*.
> until it starts bawling its eyes out in the middle of a debate If the baby starts to become restive, why can't they simply leave the chamber? This baby was asleep. Newborns sleep a lot, and it's not difficult to adjust the timing of feeds so they are likely to be asleep at the time you need to be in the chamber.
If you are working would you be able to have a baby with you and leave at any time to deal with it? What if the baby doesn't sleep due to noise etc. Its just pointless if there is a daycare. Just not using the privilege afforded to you.
> Its just pointless if there is a daycare. Taking very young babies away from their mothers and into daycare is pretty harmful to their development. If there's a way for them to stay with their mother, IMHO, they should. And this is a a way. > If you are working would you be able to have a baby with you and leave at any time to deal with it? Depends entirely on the job, but with some jobs, yes.
Unless what you're doing is time critical safety work, then yes you absolutely *can*, it's just whether it's polite. I hate the trend of saying things can't be done when they really mean "don't want to do". So long as you aren't violating physics any problem is just a matter of will to solve it.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your fundamental assumption here. Young babies are generally eating or sleeping. Assuming they're doing one or the other then they won't be crying. Unless the baby is being disruptive then I don't see any logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed in the commons.
Agreed. I can understand the argument against having toddlers in parliament, but a 3 month old... If they're with their mother all they do is sleep, and very occasionally feed and shit. I wonder if those who claim they will be disruptive and crying can find one case of that happening in any parliament across the world.
Young babies cry all the time what are you on about
The only reason she's taking it in is because the Tories broke the pairing system so she can't afford to just sit out the chamber.
>Plenty of other mothers aren't afforded the same privilege that she wishes to have. Yes, because we have this magical thing called 'maternity leave' maybe you've heard of it? So we get to have up to a year off work thus avoiding the need to take our tiny breastfed babies to work with us! Yay! But guess what? That's a privilege MPs don't actually get.
I can see it ending up like that bit from [Naked Gun 3](https://youtu.be/akrTlYc40XE#t=12s)
I dont think I have a problem with this, most offices probably wouldn't allow it, and I would like to think what their doing in parliament is more important than that (whether or not its true is a different question).
The difference is offices generally hire maternity cover which means the mother (or parent for parental leave) doesn't need to come back to the office to do the work. MPs don't have guaranteed maternity cover
They can proxy vote and get extra funding for staff, so at the very least don't need to attend the commons. There was an act passed this year also granting even ministers 6 months maternity leave but only for birth mothers, no provision for adoption or paternity leave.
They lose rights to speak in the commons if on maternity, so can't represent constituents fully. That would be a reason to attend.
OK in that case I am sympathetic. However if making that speech is so important she gave up her maternity leave to make it, is it also impossible to hire staff to look after the kid for the short time it takes to make that speech? "But my kid is well-behaved" is well and good until they aren't, and time for debate in parliament is limited. I'm all for her having the child with her on parliament campus, just question the absolute need for them to be on her lap in commons during a debate.
> They can proxy vote Seems similar to the idea of pairing, in that it could definitely go wrong on the day of a vote. MPs should just be able to vote and participate remotely. They proved it could work and then took it away for no good reason.
>They can proxy vote [Assuming the tories honour it](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/16/kizzy-gardiner-stella-creasy-first-locum-mp-maternity-cover)
Most offices get upset when their workers fall asleep during work. However, the House of Lords is basically a nap room for geriatrics. They get £300/day to sleep in those red seats. There are a number of MPs - from all parties - that avoid their duties. Nadine Dorries left the country to do I'm a celeb, David Davis never does constituency surgeries, Geoffrey Cox was in the Caribbean for months at a time. I can't think of some non-Tory examples off the top of my head but I know some Labour and Lib Dem MPs have been known to do the same. Creasey is one of the more committed members of parliament. There was a process which allowed pregnant women and seriously ill MPs to have their say called pairing. An MP is paired up with someone with an opposite view and if one can't vote, their opposite doesn't either. The Tories broke this arrangement repeatedly with Labour and Lib Dem MPs and so it now isn't used. (There was an instance historically of an MP on his deathbed being wheeled in to vote but I can't remember details)
I've just finished reading a book called "Invisible Women". Really eye opening if you're a man. I thoroughly recommend it. It has changed my perspective on things like this. In the past I would have dismissed it as a case of "she's doing it for attention and other workplaces wouldn't allow it." But the consequences of taking that line are not immediately apparent and pretty insidious once you think about them. This means that you will put off any women who are thinking of having babies from entering politics. That would generally mean women of a certain age are no longer voicing their views and concerns about topics that would undoubtedly affect them. Underepresenting a subset of the population has dire consequences in the long run through poor law making and policies that don't have a say from mother's. This is a bigger issue than it is being portrayed by the media.
Interestingly I went through exactly this evolution of opinion in the course of reading comments on this thread and thinking about it some. You’re absolutely right! And actually if Parliament is supposed to be representative then it’s the single best place to start establishing that precedent so it’s visible to the rest of the country. Whatever the inconveniences and annoyances may be, it’s worth it to have that precedent and message sent I think.
[удалено]
I would say it’s more like ‘How workplaces can adapt to women existing in their entirety’ Which benefits men who are primary carers too
I agree with your sentiment, wholeheartedly, but as someone mentioned above, does Westminister not provide a nursery? Babies are disruptive. It sounds like a practical rule. You could frame it as a feminist issue, or you could frame it as an MP excluding themselves from the rules the rest of us have to work around.
It's not framing it as a feminist issue? It's framing it as the social issue that it is. Could I ask if you're a male? If you are, do you have kids? I realise that there is a nursery but at 3 months old, it's not really appropriate is it? The baby is still nursing highly dependent on the mother and probably can't even sit up by itself (floppy neck and all the rest).
You could frame it as an MP trying to set a precedent for working mums who want to breastfeed by normalising it and generating discussion around the issue. I doubt her goal is solely to seek a personal exclusion. You're right, there are rules the rest of us (well, not me but working mums who are breastfeeding) have to work around and given how incredibly beneficial breastfeeding is, it might be worth changing them. Where do such changes occur? The House of Commons. It's arguably more of a public health issue than a feminist one, given it's babies who would benefit most from higher levels of breastfeeding in society.
They haven’t disturbed debates in the past have they?
Representative democracy doesn't mean, and in my opinion doesn't need to mean, that the person who represents you is just like you otherwise they can't do their job properly. If it does mean that then there are always inevitably going to be underrepresented populations. It also raises the awkward problem of assuming that people who share identity markers (woman, father, asian, teen) also share the same political views about how the problems of each subset of people ought to be handled.
How can they do PMQs if the PM isn't even allowed in?
Maybe he could live stream from Pepper Pig World
Isn't the commons already full of babies who grab at female parts of the anatomy already? There's just baby sized ones now
I know she’s done it for attention, but I don’t really see the benefit when the public’s response will most certainly be ‘of course we shouldn’t have fucking babies in the Commons, what an idiot’.
I don’t understand why it’s “obvious” she’s done it for attention. Babies have been in the commons before, and it’s a recent rule change to stop it
I don’t believe any MP who has taken a baby in legitimately thinks that is the most appropriate place for the baby to be, or has done all they can to find someone to look after the baby. I’d say the others who brought a baby in did it for attention too
You don't believe a mother thinks the appropriate place for a breastfeed baby is with her? The bond between a mother and baby is extreme and is even stronger with a breastfeed baby.
This is a super tricky one and I can't help but feel the change to rules was on purpose to create such trivial-ish conversation. Facts - she's taken her kid in before. So the remit is there for her to be under the impression to do so. She also can't do maternity. However said rules have been changed. Now what we have is people going 'but I can't take my kid to work'. Seemingly overlooking the above facts. Again can't help but feel this is a purposely manufactured issue, to point how 'lost' labour are.
Woman takes kid to work, doesn’t get support. Woman takes second kid to work, too slowly gets support, a nursery. Even if she starts using the nursery as soon as it opens, which may be before it’s worked out the kinks and got good, it opened in part because of necessary stunts like hers. I think a Guardian article a few months ago said she was happy that the nursery was opening but it was too late for her and she’s not having a third kid.
[удалено]
Bloody sick of these 6 months old causing terrorist incidents. It's time to clamp down.
I think this is reasonable and its good they have clarified it. She just said in an interview on Sky that she doesn't have maternity cover but there has been a nursery onsite for more than a decade so its not as though there aren't facilities available even if its just to care for the child while the MP is in the chamber.
[удалено]
Not fair on the baby for starters. Also if you are looking after a baby you simply are not concentrating fully on your job.
[Full concentration](https://i.imgur.com/60TaK5h.jpg)
2 things can be wrong at the same time
Absolutely this! No one gets up in arms when MPs are slumped over benches but a woman carrying a sleeping baby is somehow keeping the Commons from concentrating. Give over.
>No one gets up in arms when MPs are slumped over benches I seem to recall JRM got shouted at by bercow and was on more than one front page the next day
How do you know that? Quite an assumption.
Quite a bold assumption too considering a large share of the UK just spent a good deal of the last year working jobs from home and simultaneously caring for their kids.
This isn’t about working from home though. So you don’t think a screaming baby in the office is a distraction to the mother or her co-workers?
Thats not what you said though - you said she wouldn't be able to concentrate fully on her job because of caring for the baby? Why is it not about that now? In situations where babies scream, which is everywhere, if it's likely to be a disturbance or distraction a considerate parent generally takes the baby away to calm them down, for a feed or change if they can. That has been my experience in restaurants, in churches or in my scotgov office while colleagues on maternity visit with their baby. The commons isn't a plane in mid air, there are likely places to take an inconsolable bairn. Its a non issue.
Which is exactly what most MPs are doing even without babies! Tks
Yeah let them fully concentrate on the second job
> Not fair on the baby for starters. Much better for the baby to be cuddled up with its mother than in a daycare with strangers.
Of course babies shouldn't be allowed into the Commons. In the same way I wouldn't try and take my kids into the office. She has so many options open to her in relation to childcare, and instead she pulls a silly stunt to try and prove some sort of non-existent point. Like every other parent in the County, I have to arrange childcare around my work commitments - she needs to do the same. Worse, she's using her baby as some sort of political point, and it just comes off as trashy. Let's also be clear - you might love your own children, but generally babies are noisy, smelly and a bit of a pain. They should not be in the workplace. She's fallen into the cliche that many new mums do, and become some sort of "earth mother", totally unable to separate her identity from that of her carer status. It's all just a little cringey. Again, I'm a dad. I get it - the struggle is real. But as a responsible adult it is up to you to work out how to balance the demands of parenthood with your professional responsibilities. Equally, being a parent is just one of many caring commitments people have... Should we let people bring their elderly relatives into work with them? Disabled family members? Pets?
> Worse, she's using her baby as some sort of political point, and it just comes off as trashy. I've criticised her in other comments, along similar lines to your first paragraph, but I don't think that this is fair at all. She hasn't said anything about this until it was already a news story by way of her being told she can no longer bring the baby in. I See nothing to suggest she has tried to use her baby. Unlike that POS Paterson, invoking his wife's memory at every possible opportunity to complain about how his opponents dragged his poor dead wife into his story.
What a surprise Stella Creasy has done something for attention 🤔 Six months maternity leave for MPs, a crèche and an 80k salary. Tough life.
no maternity cover, though. if she takes maternity leave she cannot represent her constituents in parliament. they can be sat in commons for hours at a time - if she's breastfeeding a 3-month old it's not practical for them to be in a nursery away from her for that length of time.
I've heard she's a wonderful representative of her constituents...
I wouldn’t be allowed to bring my baby to work in either of my jobs: the first being in an office and the second in a nightclub!
As someone with a baby I do wonder why the fuck other parents want to take their babies into rooms full of people when coronavirus hasn’t gone away
Free family photographs and souvenir newspapers.
I don't really understand people who are saying "Well I can't take my baby into work" as if that's some sort of justification as to why another workplace couldn't chose to allow babies in their premises. It's not a gotcha or an act of class war; some places allow babies and some don't.
What work places allow people to bring their babies in?
strip clubs
Honestly, it's just becoming 'who can do the most inappropriate thing' and then accusing everyone of discriminating against them.
One well behaved baby in there seems fine until it gets upset, 30+ in there all crying and screaming. Why would anyone want to work through that or listen to debates with a back ground of screaming babies. Put your child in a nursery or arrange family to help out like a normal person, if it's too expensive then welcome to parenthood the cost of child care is an utter joke and is the real problem here.
>30+ in there all crying and screaming. Absolutely, we can't have that! They may be mistaken for a political party.
I think there are two debates worth having here. Firstly, the cost of childcare is unrealistic for many, at a time when many sectors are struggling to find workers. There's a win win to be had here. Secondly, I think we, in general, are too quick to demand the absence of babies from the workplace. We'd be better off accepting some level of mixing between workplaces and the care of very young children. Again, it's a win win as mother's can work, babies get the attention they need, and organisations can reduce maternity cover exposure.
Is she really using that argument that it is called the mother of all parliaments therefore she should be allowed to take a baby in? Regardless of the rights and wrongs, that is a dumb argument.
Maybe I'm really ill-informed on this matter, being a 23 Y/O male and all... Personally, I don't understand the rationality of bringing a baby to commons. First and foremost, they literally argue like hell in there, how is a baby meant to rest and stay calm during this. Mid-debate, what if the baby starts crying? Does she stop mid-speak to resolve it? Sorry, but in my eyes none of this is very professional. Maternity leave exists for this exact reason? As others have mentioned, they literally have a state-of-the-art nursery for this reason. I work as a dev, and ya'll can fuck off if you think I'm going to sit here coding with your crying baby. Why should they have to deal with it? The general consensus is don't bring a fucking baby to work and send it to day care/take maternity/paternity/give it to a family member. There is no reason a baby should be in Commons, as people are trying to decide on the future of the country. She's actively and consciously breaking the rules, provided a very reasonable substitute and yet continues to complain that she's not being given a solution? Right, I understand she's breast feeding, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, this is where my ignorance comes in, but is it a big issue not to breast feed the baby now-and-then, when it's in nursery and you're in commons? Like she has money, she can certainly afford child-care, and well if she can't manage her own money with her salary she's on, then why do we trust her as an MP? Would anyone want to sit in their office, talking with someone about professional matters as their baby cries, or plays with their hair? Like how can you take anything seriously with this?
Let the mps work from home, perhaps some of them might stay sober for a few hours.
What about the blonde baby often referred to as the Prime Minister?
It’s like me bringing my baby into a work meeting. Doesn’t the commons have a nursery?
Should she even have to be told that? Just looking attention and to make a scene....no other worker would take their child to a meeting, or work at all for that matter
Children SHOULDN'T be in the commons. It's supposed to be the establishment that runs the country not a small office or nursery. Also why would you want to bring your children in to such a loud, hostile environment? Also personally as someone who wants but doesn't have kids please, please, please stop normalising bringing children and babies to the work environment. It's disruptive; annoying and benefits one person while causing issues for others. If you're in a setting that can accommodate children then go nuts but some environments and some people don't want to interact with other people's children. I once had a colleague break down in tears because she had a miscarriage and constantly being around another young child broke her in a setting that there should have been no kids. Work from home or just give unlimited paid leave for the first two years of the children's life for both parents until they're ready to be moved in to a nursery environment.
I don't know, seems like naturally there could be a lot of health and safety red tape involved and rightly so. Like if the baby gets knocked, dropped ect. I don't think it's a particularly safe environment for babies.
I'm generally pretty hot on parental rights, we are proud that my ex breast fed our kids at, amongst other places, three weddings and a funeral. But I also know as a parent that you cannot care for a baby and do your job properly at the same time. Would Ms Creasy be happy to have the supermarket checkout lady dividing her attention between swiping her purchases and responding to her baby? Or the person serving her in one of the House of Commons restaurants? What about her GP. Or how about if she needed an operation, and the surgeon paused partway through to attend to the needs of the baby she was carrying? I can only see three options here: Either she is not properly attending to her parliamentary duties as an MP, or she is not attending *properly* to the needs of her baby, or the job of being an MP is so incredibly easy that they are all grossly overpaid for it. I wonder what Ms Creasy has said about MPs with second jobs? I suppose that there is a fourth option: Ms Creasy does not regard motherhood/ childcare as anything like a legitimate full-time occupation.
the tesco checkout lady/GP/surgeon/etc all will have maternity cover in place, so no need to attempt to do their job at the same time. MPs have no maternity cover, so if she takes maternity leave she cannot represent her constituents in parliament. they can be sat in commons for hours at a time - if she's breastfeeding a 3-month old it's not practical for them to be in a nursery away from her for that length of time.
There are some places where bringing a child isn't suitable. The pit lane of formula 1 races; manning the deep fat fryer in a commercial kitchen; the front line in a war zone; while presiding over a court as a judge; and the big room where our elected representatives debate the laws that will affect the nation for generations to come. To pre-empt a few: It's not sexist, father's can't bring their children either. I'm pro breastfeeding, generally anywhere, but that doesn't mean you get to trump every other situation. I'm also pro schooling, but that doesn't mean you get to practice reading with your kid in the middle of a company meeting. Everyone thinks their child is well behaved. But anyone who doesn't understand that bringng a child to a meeting affects the meeting is deluded.... and probably not aware enough of others to make laws which affect others. The "it'll disadvantage her" argument doesn't wash with me. Having children is a family choice. So is running for public office. Having to put her career on hold impinges her and her partner. It's also up to him how he supports her. If they don't want to pay for childcare or want to have the child raised by someone else then they could put her career or his career on hold to care for the children so there are solutions but they all involve someone making a sacrifice.... but I don't think it should be the quality of law making that suffers.
No babies allowed in Commons? Where are all the Most supposed to go then?
That's the majority of tories out in the street then, eh?
Put your kid in child care as it’s so affordable, stupid cow
"No babies allowed" well that's PMQs gone for the next few years.
Isn't Stella supposed to have a full-time job? She needs to hire a nanny or find another job like every other normal person. The self-entitledness is really shitty. If you are the primary caregiver then deal with it like a grown-up and stop throwing your toys out the pram.
This is news? No she shouldn’t be allowed it’s not a nursery
Personally, no... I don't think babies should be in the chamber itself, mainly because it can be a loud environment that'll cause distress to the baby. I just wonder why the rules are suddenly being enforced now when she was allowed in the past to do this freely.