What is it with politicians and Mumsnet? I admit, I am an avid reader. I don’t have darling children (DC), I have no intention of ‘TTC’ (trying to conceive) for a very long time, and I certainly don’t have a ‘DH’ (darling husband).
Yet, the chat boards are like crack; there is a certain subversive sense of humour, advice second to none and relationship threads that unfurl better than any real time soap drama. What I do not do, however, when procrastinating online, is click on a political thread, let alone dare to comment.
Mumsnet is firmly on the liberal left, populated by Gove-hating bleeding hearts. The few dissenters are accused of the ultimate sin: reading the Daily Mail, an admittance punishable by death, or at least acerbic derision.
But the influence of Mumsnet is undeniably huge. With an estimated 1.6 million members and over 10 million visits per month, Mumsnet is now the UK’s largest network for parents, competing with the National Childbirth Trust (NCT) and Mumsnet’s staunch enemy: Netmums (regularly criticised for the sparkly bits, dislike of swearing and overuse of ‘hun’).
Much like Labour utilised de-rosetted activists on the ground before the last election, whispering lies and peddling fears at school gates, the website’s chat boards offers a below radar opportunity that any politician would be wise to harness.
Mumsnet provides a gateway into a section of would-be voters that cannot or will not be accessed by party political broadcasts or TV debates, while the political scalps of “Biscuit-gate” illustrates the website’s power to embarrass.
This Tuesday, Mumsnet put on a live webchat with three female British politicians: Labour’s Gloria de Piero, the Liberal Democrat’s Jo Swinson and the Conservative Nicky Morgan. The webchat followed a survey of 1200 members about the UK’s political culture, released last weekend.
The survey revealed a deepening chasm between the female chattering class and our politicians; 90 percent believe the political culture in Westminster is sexist, 85 percent believe the UK parliament is not family-friendly and 66 percent believe that personal connections with educational background are the key indicators of political success.
This paints a disheartening picture, no doubt, but I cannot help but think the media, not the system, should shoulder much of the blame. Day to day, we are bombarded by the same message from the BBC and left-wing media; politicians are out of touch, a private education renders a man inhuman, we urgently need more women, the political men-folk JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND.
Meanwhile, projects inspired by the sort of patronising, inherently degrading tokenism that underlies all-women shortlists attack meritocracy in the name of quotas.
It is predictably dull. An additional X chromosome does not ensure a quality public figure, just as owning a few Ys does not lead to boorish, pettifoggery. The Houses of Parliament should be full of our best and brightest, not a microcosm of society. I do not need a 26-year-old white, middle class woman to represent me. What we need to represent us is talent, not tokens, ladies.
Unsurprisingly, the three MPs played to their crowd; PMQs took a bashing (“Jeremy Kyle for posh people”: Gloria de Piero) and all agreed that women are often put off by the unsociable working hours of public life.
The resounding headline was a suggestion, by Nicky Morgan MP, that one way to attract more women would be to introduce job sharing for MPs. Unsurprisingly it was a crowd pleaser; in reality, the idea is little more than a cute, female friendly, lazy example of policy on the hoof, thrown in to win a few votes despite as much chance of a proper debate as there is of David Cameron becoming the next British Pope.
Job sharing for MPs is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. Primarily, the practicalities are disastrous.
Within each party there are MPs diametrically opposed on a number of issues from welfare to Europe; how on earth should we expect an already apathetic electorate to weigh up combinations of candidates and how should it be decided which MP attends what events, who votes on what issues? What happens if parliament is recalled?
More importantly, a job share would remove the direct accountability of one MP to their electorate, via the ballot box, while further obscuring transparency within an already opaque system. MPs are not GPs nor solicitors; the job is inherently different in every imaginable way, it’s a lazy comparison.
Practicalities aside, one might ask whether there is enough work for one MP, let alone two. MPs sit just 30 weeks per year, a little over half. When parliament is sitting it’s often hard not to ask ‘what’s the point?’
Between the European Union, local government and the devolved parliaments, there isn’t a lot left to do. The EU’s competences include, but are not limited to: the internal market, social policy, economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, the environment, consumer protection, transport, energy, trans-European networks, freedom, security and justice, public health matters and trans-European networks.
The Scottish Parliament’s devolved powers include agriculture, forestry and fisheries, education and training, environment, health and social affairs, housing, law and order, local government, tourism and economic development, among others.
County councils are responsible for education, transport, planning, social care, fire and public safety etc. while district, borough and city councils manage housing, refuse collection, recycling and planning applications.
Within their own offices, 90 percent of the work undertaken by an MP is first drafted or indeed completed by their parliamentary or constituency staff. Rather than having two MPs for one job, there are arguments in favour of cutting the role’s hours for each MP that does not front a committee or sit on the front bench.
And finally, the question is being raised on a forum largely for women who are, one would assume, supporters of liberal feminism, equality of opportunities and respect across the genders and of the belief that what men can do, women can do just as well.
Suggestions like this reek of the idea that for women to succeed allowances must be made. They reinforce the stereotype that the family – children’s bedtimes and the like – are “women’s work”; when did we last hear a male MP asked how he juggles his family life and work commitments?
If we want more women in politics then girls must be brought up to believe they can be what they want to be and that they can do so without special allowances or a step up. Job sharing is a lovely idea on a webchat, but a horrendous one in the real world.
Mumsnet’s continued foray into politics is an interesting one that can offer insight and innovation; job sharing is not one of those. During Tuesday’s webchat, one member suggested that because decisions made in parliament affect the lives of all, politicians should be made to undergo a psychological assessment prior to election.
As someone working in mental health, I can only concur. The most sensible suggestion made all day.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.