So, Jeremy sent me an article

About Stella Creasy and her maternity leave demands. Which ended up as this:

MPs AND MATERNITY
Sir, Stella Creasy, MP, is arguing for more, greater or at least different maternity rights for MPs. Alice Thomson suggests (“MPs deserve maternity rights like rest of us”, Jun 19) that these should be “the maternity rights that women in every other walk of life take for granted”.

This is not what should be done — general maternity rights already include returning to your job at the end of the leave. And if there is an election during such a period the insistence cannot be that the seat should not be fought (akin to not challenging the Speaker). Perhaps this will be suggested, but that would be moving from rights to maternity privilege.
Tim Worstall
Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute

16 thoughts on “So, Jeremy sent me an article”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Aren’t MPs wore like the self employed who have a fixed term contract to provide services, in their case the electorate?

    AIUI nobody is obliged to renew a contract just because the supplier decided to get pregnant and go on maternity leave, even if they provide someone else to deliver that service during her absence.

    She’s also arguing that she doesn’t get any extra money to pay for someone else to deliver the service. Again, in the real world nobody would commit to a contract that they would have to bear the cost of the provider’s absence, whatever the reason

  2. Non-ministerial MPs don’t have to show-up to work, do they?

    I suppose the ministerial ones are expected to, although I’d be happy for them not to bother.

    But anyway, what are all these young people with no experience doing as MPs?

  3. The Meissen Bison

    The voters of Walthamstow elected Stella Creasy to represent them. They did not vote for her maternity leave cover. MPs are not (yet) fungible.

  4. Theres a genuine point there i think, but Stella should be careful that she doesn’t lose sympathy from famillies and companies that have to juggle this themselves. Say you had 6 kids and maxed out on your statutory rights. 1 year off each kid, that’s 12 weeks extra holiday full pay, 3 years on basic pay (thank you taxpayer), 3 years on nothing. Your employer pays the cover the full rate. Say Stella has 6 kids. She keeps her full salary does she for 6 years (elections aside) and gets the taxpayer to fork out for her cover?

  5. But the interesting part will be how Stella frames it. Is she just going to make it a traditional labour fight i.e. workers rights or is she going to make it about better Mummy representation in Parliament and the corollory (in the Brit system) better Mummy representation in the government.
    More maternity rights might well lead to more Mummy MPs (which i think is good for the academy) but also more Mummy MPs taking their extended leave means less representation (which if i was in Stellashire i might not be so happy about)

  6. As a self-employed person I don’t get sick pay, holiday pay, time off in lieu etc etc.
    Stella Creasy is a self-employed person.
    But, but …. “reasons”

  7. John77:

    Yep, and that’s why it’s fascinating to see how Stella frames it. It’s of course better than anyone else self employed which MP office holders are classified as. If Stella wants a good non-statutory deal for herself, she’s already got one (full pay for whatever time you agree with your whip). But that far-better-than statutory deal only leads to a conscience problem.
    A: Keep the salary, prioritise baby time, bugger constituents. B: Prioritise baby time, look after constituents, forego salary to pay for cover.
    Stella doesn’t want to make the call. Her way of getting round this is to go in full campaign mode.

    Stella: Baby should be priority
    Everybody: OK.
    Stella: My constituents should be looked after,
    Everybody: OK
    Stella: i should keep my full salary
    Everybody: err pardon?
    Stella: because if i don’t get to keep my full salary. I’ll bugger the baby, take it to work, like Tulip was forced to.
    Media- good point, you go girl.
    Everybody else: well how wonderful that choice is available to you.

  8. I’m so fucking sick of this, so sick of this “liberal” drivel. The idea of female equality was never that they got a whole lot of privileges to make it more suitable for women. It was that you could turn up and do the same job. “But my chil…” Right. You care about how little time you get with your kids? Don’t do the fucking job. Get something 9-5 at the local council.

    The sooner the libertarian age comes (and it’s coming) the better. No discrimination, but no favours, either.

  9. The sooner the libertarian age comes (and it’s coming) the better. No discrimination, but no favours, either.

    Let’s hope so. But things have been running in the opposite direction for the last 25 years. If your new age does come about, I fear it will have to involve bloodshed.

  10. “Bugger the constituents”
    But her constituents have paid staff to look after them, the MP’s paid office staff, who exist whether the MP is pregnant or not, whether the MPs turns up to Parliament or not. She seems to be trying to present herself as if she is a local councillor, with no staff and having to do all casework herself. If that’s what she wants, she should do that, 10 grand a year, no staff, no office.

  11. Spot on:

    Try it on £148 a week, Stella
    Labour’s pregnant MP Stella Creasy says women are forced to choose between being a mum and an MP as there is no allowance to pay someone to cover for them while they’re on maternity leave.

    Is she forgetting the £150,000-plus every MP gets for their support staff? And that, as Tory MP for Saffron Walden Kemi Badenoch pointed out, MPs receive full pay even on maternity leave — around £1,500 a week.

    Shouldn’t Stella be campaigning for ordinary working mums, struggling on the £148-a-week statutory maternity pay, rather than featherbedded MPs?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *