Mothers in the house

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/jul/25/mothers-in-the-house-role-of-politicians-as-parents

Version 0 of 1.

A dozen days ago I was relieved that it was Theresa May who was to be the next prime minister and not Andrea Leadsom, who’d implied her qualifications for the job were better than May’s because she was a mother.

Presumably Leadsom meant she would bring to the job the habit of loving concern, knowledge of human nature and so on. It could easily be argued that such skills as the ability to listen without looking bored, being used to everything taking longer than expected, or offering advice over and over again without the ones you’re advising taking the slightest notice might well be relevant to governing via elected politicians.

But mothers learn a whole lot more than that. Practical things such as not putting anything breakable near the edge of shelves or tables; knowing when a hug is the only way to cheer someone up; how to get the young not to wear their awful favourite clothes when senior friends are expected; how to balance the demands of your husband against the wishes of the offspring when you actually think they are both wrong… Well, that might indeed involve the same patience and sense as balancing the demands of the party you belong to against the assumptions of the people who voted you in, which are entirely different.

So that would have been interesting if those were Leadsom’s reasons, but sadly it seems she meant she had a stake in the future while May didn’t. I had been about to write it would be strange if women began to assume they wouldn’t get anywhere in politics unless they had babies. Why, they’d have to allow for babies being accommodated in the House of Commons. There was a discussion of exactly that not long ago. But I still think babies and politics should be considered separately.

What do you think? Have your say below