Working mothers make children fat? Rubbish.

Yet again the media has lent a platform to the disturbing narrative that suggests working women make bad mothers.

There is so much to be infuriated by in this latest round of ridiculousness sparked by this research it is difficult to know where to start. It claims that children of working women are likely to be unhealthier than those with stay at home mummies. Whilst my fury is predominantly directed towards the media coverage that has positioned the research in terms of an ‘ongoing debate’ about whether mothers should work or not; the very premise of the research is, to be frank insulting. Why on earth is the research focused on mothers? What about single Dad’s or House Husbands?

In simple terms, why say mother when you mean parent? It all contributes to the implicit vilification of women who want to ‘have it all’ – I mean, how very dare she.

If a woman chooses to have a child and give up work – points to her, but, isn’t she lucky to have the choice? What of the families that can’t sustain themselves without both working? What of single parent families?

Do we think that the fact that London has the highest child poverty rate is unrelated to the fact that children in London are more likely than children in other regions to live in a household where no adult works? Methinks not. The predominant cause of child poverty is parental worklessness; there are multiple government and charitable initiatives in place to rectify the problem.  In light of this, aren’t there some pretty serious flaws in the implication that children will be better off if mummy stays at home?

Instead of ridiculous headlines such as  ‘Working Mothers’ Children Unfit’ why not use the research in a positive way? I say more initiatives promoting healthy body image, decent childcare schemes and dare I say it let’s finally extend paternity leave and give families a real choice.

Alas, alack.  The media coverage this has had today has only served to perpetuate a widespread and frankly unsettling notion that working mothers are either incompetent, irresponsible or both.

A ‘rainbow coalition’: too much to hope for?

As I settled down to work yesterday with PMQs in my ear, I caught the split screen fronting the BBC news channel website: half the screen was dedicated to the House of Commons and the other half to the predominantly peaceful G20 protests. As I listened to David Cameron rolling out the one-liners and generally slagging off Gordon Brown as much as possible without making a meaningful point, it occurred to me that the politicians could learn a lot from the protesters.

Every time I think about it I’m astounded at the way this crisis has provoked not only anger, but unity. Not just in fury against the financial sector, but through the G20 protests and actually, through the G20 summit itself. Some of the most ideologically disparate world leaders have come together in London in an effort to find a way out of the economic mire, but it has also become a platform for discussion of some of the most divisive issues. Today America and Russia held talks about reducing their nuclear arsenals by a third and President Obama accepted an invitation to China. These are encouraging steps towards breaching some serious divides.  Admittedly the election of Barack himself has been instrumental in these developments but one can’t help marvelling at the confluence of events that have facilitated his efforts.

Yesterday, campaigners from more than 80 organisations marched under one banner. China invited America to visit. Yet our politicians remain as entrenched in their party lines as ever. They can’t seem to see past the latest polls and their own re-election. 

The world has been knocked for six by this crisis and there seems to be a growing concensus that the only way to survive it will be by helping each other to rebuild and to move forward in unison. Why then are our politicians still fettered by this uncompromising ‘party loyalty’? The world has changed irrevocably over the last year. Surely, if there is ever a time to move from dogma to pragmatism, to come together for intelligent discussion rather than zingers and to lay the  foundations of progress in mutual respect, it is now.

Why so sad?

The public antipathy towards bankers and the bonus culture is indicative of a broader shift in attitudes: the developed world has suddenly realised that money doesn’t make you happy.

GDP might show off how well the economy is performing but it is not – after a certain point – a useful measure of social progress. Living standards have rocketed within the US and the UK but research hi-lighted in this Guardian piece has revealed that happiness has stagnated.

Wealth and the individual amassing of it have taken precedence over almost everything. This is not just the fault of Sir Fred Goodwin – tempting as it is to blame him for everything - but of society in a broader sense. Labour’s 1997 talk of happiness as a defining measurement of Britain’s success was eclipsed by boasts of unbroken economic growth. The culture of celebrity continues to glamourise money. Children are taught to aspire to being ’rich and famous’ in spite of the endless examples of people who have been damaged by the media glare and the burden of wealth. 

When did wealth become synonomous with happiness? And why is it only in the face of economic disaster that anyone has stopped to question the validity of this equation?

The financial crisis seems to have acted as a reality check on the world’s value system.

Human relationships and with them the quality of human experience suffered during the glory years. The individualistic drive of a capitalist ideology has damaged mutual respect. Personal relationships have suffered and so has social responsibility. In the wake of the crash there has been much written about the future of capitalism (this FT series is useful) and it has been widely noted that there is a real opportunity for the instigation of progressive agendas around the world, led of course by our favourite, Barack.

Let’s hope that as the G20 grapple with the intricacies of our financial system’s failures, they take a  moment to recognise that pots and pots of money have not made us happy; and, that they take more than a moment to ponder just what it is that will.

How sexy is Jaqui Smith (politically speaking)?

The latest twist in the MPs’ expenses scandal this morning revealed that Jaqui Smith’s husband had accidentally claimed back £67 worth of adult entertainment. As I came across the headline this morning my initial reaction was amusement. But the giggling was soon superceded by an overwhelming sympathy for the beleaguered Home Secretary.

The poor woman: whatever your political sympathies may be, I think we can all agree that having your partner’s indiscretions plastered across an already hostile media is a pretty unpleasant experience. Her husband’s blind stupidity in failing to clock the bill has turned what was probably an already hurtful incident into a career-damaging tabloid field day. Jaqui is quoted as being ‘furious and mortified’ by the whole affair and I really do feel for her but the debacle certainly won’t impact on my opinion of her as politician. A mistake was made, the money is being paid back. Surely that should be the end of it?

Some may be offended by a husband watching porn in his wife’s absence.  Frankly, I am more offended by the sensationalist glee with which the red tops and their incognito cousins have jumped on the story. Headlines such as, ‘Home Sex-retary porn film claims’ (thank you The Sun) are not only cruel but supremely hypocritical, given that these are exactly the sort of publications championing privacy in the face of the ‘Big Brother state’.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m quite uncomfortable with some of the potential infringements on civil liberties that have arisen of late, that’s another discussion – but I flatly refuse to be lectured to by a media that revels in making private problems public. It’s indicative of a broader hypocrisy that we’ve become all too accustomed to: papers will happily print stories castigating ‘pervs’ or sex-addicts  next to pictures of naked 18-year old girls. I don’t have a particular problem with a woman (or a man for that matter) who chooses to take their clothes off (although this piece raises some uncomfortable truths about strip-clubs) or make naughty films as long as they aren’t hurting themselves or anyone else. It’s not something I’d do but that’s my choice which I am free to make, just as others are free to behave differently.

Pornographic films and their viewers do not offend me but legitimised hypocrisy most certainly does.

The Political Week: G20, Ed Balls on being chancellor, the end of ‘Cool Britannia’ and how not to be burned if you’re a banker…

The maiden post on this blog will hopefully give a flavour of its direction by citing a variety of articles worth a read from across the political spectrum.

This week has – unsurprisingly – been dominated by the lead up to the G20 summit and here is an unusually optimistic analysis of what is likely to be agreed from Will Hutton at The Guardian.

Steve Richards in The Indie compares the hype surrounding the summit with the election that never was in 2007 and also questions the fashionable cynicism that has risen in the media exemplified here by David Owen in the Telegraph.

Interesting interview with Ed Balls in The New Statesman. The source of the ‘I’d love to be chancellor’ quote that’s been doing the rounds.

A thought-provoking article by Stryker McGuire in the Guardian about the fall of ‘Cool Britannia’.

Finally, for anyone working in the city worried about getting lynched for looking like a banker, the Telegraph offers some friendly advice.