I admire women who are brave enough to stay at home and raise a family, even if it means a financially constrained home life. I will always be eternally grateful to my mother for being a constant presence in my life as a child. However, I also admire women like Mrs Blair who have the guts to get out there and grab the world by the nuts and succeed.

Oh I don't know, it all gets so bloody confusing.

Her comments have been blown completely out of proportion and applied to cases she never referred to. She clearly states:

"One of the things that worries me now is you see young women who say: 'I look at the sacrifices that women have made and I think why do I need to bother, why can't I just marry a rich husband and retire?' and you think, how can they even imagine that is the way to fulfil yourself, how dangerous it is,"

since that clearly is not you then what on earth is this counter article about?

Whole heatedly agree, both should be proud of their life choices and their commitment to themselves and their children. But we shouldn't ignore that there are a portion of (rather misleadingly named) 'yummy mummys' at both ends of our class system.

There are those mothers who are the babyccino types who often also have childcare despite not working themselves, just so they have time off to shop with their husbands credit cards. Those who stroll up and down King's Road with their enormous prams and impeccable nails.

But then there are also those at the other end of the spectrum who refuse to work, despite there not being a financially reliable father around. Those that survive on benefits and are convinced that being there, but not financially supporting their child, is going to prepare the child for all that life throws at them.

I think it's at this selection of mothers where Cherie is targeting her argument.

Though I wish Emily and Oscar all the best.

Every family has to make their own decisions, whats right for them- wheter its the mom staying at home, the dad staying at home, both working part-time, both working full-time and having help- as long as the child is loved, has good care-givers and the parents are happy, thats good. However their must be done more to make work and family more easily combinable for women and men- more part-time options for both men and women, cheap & good child-care options ect.

This article is ridiculous. Ms Booth was not, in any way, attacking stay-at-home mums. I stayed at home until my youngest was in school, because there was no option to stay in my field of employment that would fit around my childcare, and the jobs I could get that did fit around childcare didn't pay enough to cover it. I am not the sort of woman Ms Booth was railing against.

Ms Booth was obviously criticising the type of woman who trawls for a rich husband, then hands the kids over to the au pair while she visits the gym and has her hair done. When the kids are a bit bigger, she turns motherhood into a competitive sport, insisting that Henry is a rugby star and Tigerlily a ballerina, while both speak Russian and pass their Grade 6 violin by the age of 4. Their kids only leave the car to take part in some sort of competition, and are valuable only for the bragging rights they provide.

This sort of crap is not what we want our daughters to aspire to.

It's telling that she uses the wrong phrase to refer to what she doesn't understand,

Or, is it the author, who doesn't understand her?

Or, maybe both? Or, oops, is it me, who doesn't know from "yummy mummy"?

To me it's not a lifestyle choice but a function of others's prurient judgment.

Cherie Booth clearly knew exactly what she was referring to - some young women who are in quite good jobs and in a partnership where the pair could afford childcare, but aspire to an idle life-style - as 'ladies who lunch' or WAG type. They use having a child as an excuse not to work, and somehow the gym, facials and hairdresser life-style continues even when the children are at school. I work flexible hours, so I see these women frequently at the expensive private gym I go to sometimes during the day (joined by school-age kids at half-term). The difference is - I pay my own membership and that of others in my family through my work.

Her point is that they are far too complacent and short-sighted. They assume that women have already achieved equality so if they personally want to opt out that's OK. They don't see the dangers for themselves, their children, and in terms of their contribution to society. Since the whole family as well as their gym membership is dependent on one wage, that wage could disappear - for various reasons (divorce, redundancy). There is also the issue of role models - to the children and more generally, and that of the contribution of women to society

This article is missing the point. She is possibly not the sort of parent Cherie had in mind although she could be in danger of becoming one since she seems to have no specific plans to go back to work.

But regardless of the fact that she personally thinks her position as a dependent is justified, she has to admit that there are some women of the 'yummy mummy' type out there, and that the criticisms Cherie made of them have some validity.

Why don't the Blair's shut up and get lost somewhere in te Caribbean

While I agree that it is a personal choice I am afraid not going back to work after having a child/children can be problematic.
(Non)affordable childcare is an issue, but I wonder if longterm SAHMs are never worried about their financial situation should their marriage fail. Or their total dependency on their husband (however rich he might be) in old age?
To my mind creating more affordable childcare options is the only way to go, as choosing not to go back to work can seriously backfire later.

If it was better subsidised, and I could afford care for Oscar comfortably within my salary, perhaps I'll be able to make a different choice in the future.

But why on earth are you expected to pay the childcare cost from within your salary when your child has two parents?

Given you are keen to tell us is your husband is so fabulously well-paid, this also just sounds like a massive evasion. He could pay for it presumably. This "oohh poor me" argument that freeloads of less privileged women is quite a common trick.

Complacency is absolutely the right word here: I'll live off a man and not be independent. But, if I want to re-enter the labour market, or I want my daughters to, then I'll expect all the gains on the back of other women who did put themselves out there.

setting a bad example to your son?- maybe.
If you had a girl, though- surely you'd want her to aspire to more?

I completely agree with you.

Childcare should - obviously - come from the joint salary of the couple, to pay for THEIR children (as well as all the other costs of children).

It sounds as though the partner somehow assumes Oscar is more her responsibility than his and so she must find the money for childcare or she must lose her job.

Even from the point of view of man who sounds like a somewhat detached father, that's a bad plan - in the longterm. She is now unemployed (in terms of job) and has no assurance she can get back to work in future. They have lost her salary, not just for the few yrs Oscar will be at home, but probably for some time after that, when he's at school. The husband may get tired of being the sole wage-earner and may begin to think she should make a financial contribution to the home she's living in and to fund whatever lifestyle she wants to have - and to help pay for costs for Oscar, which increase the older he gets.

What if he gets tired of the whole set-up and they split up as unfortunately a lot of couples do. What happens to Oscar then? Extracting child maintenance can be very difficult especially if the man remarries.

In the even longer term will he resent it if he's the only one paying for astronomic student costs for Oscar and any other kids? And then - if she can't get back to work or only gets back to a much lower paid job as happens when you leave your job - will he resent being the one mainly paying for the family on his pension? And that they can't help Oscar out with a house deposit?

The whole 'I gave up work for my child' schtick needs to be thought through long term - in relation to that child/teenager/young adult's benefit, and in relation to the benefit of the whole family.

Absolutely. And, more to the point, given that Mrs Blair is known to have put her political aspirations on hold in order to allow her (now very rich) husband to succeed instead, what on earth was Mrs Blair talking about?

"And, more to the point, given that Mrs Blair is known to have put her political aspirations on hold in order to allow her (now very rich) husband to succeed instead, what on earth was Mrs Blair talking about?"

Cherie Booth is a very successful barrister who earned more than him for years. So she does know what she's talking about in saying that opting out of supporting the family and opting in to dependency may be an unwise, short-sighted choice.

Hang on. You are a journalist. You have written an article and presumably got paid for it.

You are a working mother. Working from home, while your child is pre-school.

Cherie was not talking about you.

This is a mixed-up article. On the one hand, the author is defensive about how fulfilling what she calls her 'sacrifice' is. But in the second half, she says that if her salary were equal to or better than her husband's, she wouldn't necessarily choose to make this sacrifice. The basic point may hold good: that women are having to drop out of work because they aren't paid enough and they especially aren't paid enough to have the choice to be the one to continue their career while their husband looks after the kid. But this simply indicates the need for far more feminist activism than currently exists - and I would suggest that it is precisely these women, who have dropped out of work under alleged financial pressure, who should be campaigning to close the wage gap between the sexes. The rest of the parenting population, holding down a job AND looking after children, don't have the time, and so the cycle continues.

The language of 'sacrifice' makes me feel a bit ill, though. Women have been told for millennia that they must sacrifice their own wants and needs for the good of their partners and children; that of the whole family, their needs and lives must come last, must be subsumed beneath the 'fulfillment' of producing the next generation. Men - you will note - can have all the fulfillment of children without making any personal sacrifices. This is entirely left out of the discussion, which is all about what women must do and what children allegedly need from them.

How long before women stop buying into these ideas, and glamorising their own exploitation, rather than addressing it? Wouldn't the grotesqueness of the language be far more apparent if someone attributed the need for their own greater sacrifice and loss of ambition to their ethnicity? The normalised language of servitude used by some women has got to be unpicked and abandoned. That language alone, Emily Murray, is going to give your son a badly skewed idea of gender relations.

@lonie and oomph - spot on.

Yes, painting it as a 'sacrifice' is not the way to go. I ran from my career like a bat out of hell...and why should I earn money to pay someone else to look after my child when I hated my job so much?

Women who like their jobs and want to go back to them, good luck to you. Women who don't have a choice and need both incomes (or are single mothers) you have my sympathy. I'm one of the lucky ones...someone who actually likes children and doesn't see it as a 'chore' to be at home all day with a baby, it's positively a joy. Why would I choose spreadsheets and conference calls over her?

Must return the compliment! Also spot on. This is the bit I especially agree with -

"Men - you will note - can have all the fulfillment of children without making any personal sacrifices. This is entirely left out of the discussion, which is all about what women must do and what children allegedly need from them."

Reading some of the posts on this thread - like that of the so-called "Miss Teacher" (!) you'd think, unless they're just trolling, that men, as fathers, don't exist. The focus on what women should do or shouldn't do completely obscures the responsibility of men for childcare of their own children. That responsibility does not consist of just saying to a woman - you do it or pay someone to do it.

I know many men who would be insulted by the idea that they do not want to care for their own children. But I have come across men - sometimes here - who are infuriated by the idea that fathers may not get the same custody and access rights to their children as women - and at one and the same time condemn women for being working mothers.

Yes, we should wake up to the use of the language of servitude about women; we should also wake up to the air-brushing of fathers out of the debate on childcare (of which this article is - overall - guilty).

Better subsidised child care when we are cutting benefit support for the disabled?

When you are poor you are told you should not have children unless you can look after them without benefits, when you are rich you can demand subsidised child care.

I am all for women having meaningful work, as men should be able to expect. Not all women or men should have children. As a society we need to address the question of what our children are for, why we should have them & how we should care for them. At the moment we have a disconnected screwed up understanding. Articles about 'yummy mummies' who are not. Coverage of the failure of our in care system to actually take care of children, stories about obesity in children and stories about hungry malnourished children.
In a civilised society every child should be wanted, cared for properly to grow up and take their place in the world. We are throwing g a generation on the scrap heap.

"Why would I choose spreadsheets and conference calls over her?"

To be a good role model to her. To ensure her longterm economic security (eg if your partner is made redundant; you get divorced) which includes ensuring she won;t lose her home in future. To aid in paying for all the costs of the child and any other children (eg music lessons, private tuition, school trips etc etc) which go on increasing. To pay towards her University fees so she does not end in masses of debt. To give her a house deposit.

To avoid dependency now, and in the future.

Why not use the time off at home to re-train for a career you would enjoy? Eg do an OU course? Go to evening classes? I continued working full-time when I had children but I also increasingly hated my career - so I took another degree at the same time - in the evenings. While on the 3rd maternity leave I applied for a job I was by then qualified for, related to the previous one but far better. I got it and have never looked back.

" It is certainly not the easy option, but it can be as fulfilling as the career you have sacrificed."

No. It's can't because it can't pay your bills. FT mothering is voluntary servitude.

Maybe Cherie Blair could give a talk about people who advance in their careers because of their social and political connections; who use their husband's position to freeload from shops etc; who exploit their husband's former job and connections to try to profit from the privatisation of the NHS
Not to mention releasing a tacky little book boasting about sexual exploits on top of a double decker bus.
Basically, who cares what she has to say about anything?

ps is there ANY chance "Oscar" (Oscar!) won't be going to Montessori?

How did any of this help her in her career as a barrister. I've seen her in that capacity - she's very talented.

Why would we be interested in what she's got to say? As one of the top-performing female barristers and with 4 children she's an excellent role model and an intelligent, influential person.

It would really help if the Guardian could tell us verbatim what she did actually say, Accroding to yesterday's headline, it was that women who

put children before career set a bad example

, but I can't see anything in either article to substantiate this.

If she really did say this, then the angry response from Emily and many commenters would seem to be justified.

Yummy or not Mrs Murray has to be criticised for letting Osc' go to Pink Floyd gigs (been there, done that, got the t-shirt!).

Alternatively this is all a bit of a fake article and Osc' is actually a 40+ year old PORG (nuspeak for dwarf: person of restricted growth) because he's old enough to have been into Dark Side of the Moon!

And finally. One thing the saintly Cherie (sic.) cannot be acused of is being yummy. Is there an antonym (that's a word with an opposite meaning for all you trolls reading out there) that rhymes with harpy?

@Ionie:
Since the whole family as well as their gym membership is dependent on one wage, that wage could disappear - for various reasons (divorce, redundancy)
Exactly.. I am so grateful my husband supported/ talked me into staying in my job when our son was born. I was freelancing abroad for a company I had previously worked for full-time ..and to begin with it just seemd the "easy life" not to have to "bother" with the organisiation/travel of being a working mum (but more than anything, my husband also knew my work is my also passion). He had a well paid job and my freelance/partime income wasnt 100% necessary... So when my husband became seriously ill when our son was a year old, the company I work for supported me through out. When he passed away when our son was 2 years old, they offered me back my full-time job.

Ionie - I too have seen some of Ms. Blair's work and don't share your view that she is "very talented".
Plus there was the incident in Feb 2010 when as a junior judge she let a violent offender off on the basis that he attended a mosque daily and was a good religious man, an unacceptable breach which resulted in a formal complaint about her. Shamso Miah, 25, broke another customer's jaw during a violent 'queue rage' attack after a row erupted about who was next in line, but was spared a prison sentence by Blair who told him : "She told him: 'I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. 'You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. 'You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.' This is not the response of a "talented lawyer"

Neither was the sentence she gave to a cocaine smuggler in September 2011, blasted by three appeal court judges as "unduly lenient" and "deficient" who increased it from a suspended sentence to three and a half years - at great public expense caused by the appeal, of course.

If you do not know how the political connections kicked in, not just for her but also for Derry Irvine who was the head of chambers where the Blairs did their training, then that is due to your own lack of research.Their former chambers openly admits that the tenants all benefited from all the new legislation: "Tony Blair's time in office really did help expand our practice areas," explained Goudie. "The raft of new laws brought in by the Government were pieces of legislation which we could embrace as it built on the expertise that we already had in chambers."Of course, we're thankful to Blair's government, but it wasn't only us who benefited. The way Labour churned out new rules and laws has helped expand a lot of lawyers' practices." - July 2007 article in The Lawyer.

Lastly, regardless of whether you view Cherie Blair as a "talented lawyer", she has no basis for telling other people how to live their lives - particularity given her own poor judgement in matters such as the Carole Caplin and Peter Foaster farragos.

This debate becomes quite infuriating because women on either side of it always want to tell other women that their personal choice was superior. It becomes self-congratulatory and women on both sides validate their choice by deriding somebody else's.

In reality these decisions are based on specific individual circumstances and it's only possible to evaluate somebody else's position if you understand all of those details; so I wouldn't judge either a full-time working mum or a stay-at-home one purely on the basis of the 'title'.

There is no suggestion that a woman you stays at home for the first couple of years of their child's life will stay at home forever and never contribute financially to things like uni fees etc

I think the point is that there is very little financial value for a lot of women in going back into work, because once the childcare is paid for, the family unit isn't much better off. It is well known that younger children are happier with a single secure attachment (see Dr John Bowlby's collection, A Secure Base), so with little financial benefit to a second parent working, it seems like a prudent choice.

As a family unit, it doesn't matter 'which parent is paying' for childcare (an you'd worry about any family that did look at things in those terms), just the final financial outcome of the primary carer, which is typically the mother, returning to work.

..and yes, I prefer to be bringing up my son in a country which is not my own to be able to work in my industry and support our very small family, to not be reliant on benefits. I'm know I'm lucky to have a decent job plus I didn't study 6 years to be on benefits.

A yummy mummy is not a woman who is taking a career break to care for her children. It's a woman who never has nor will have the intention to work whatever age her children are. She is sponging off her husband and fulfills no purpose. She doesn't immunize her children, has no true independence and therefore is setting the worst example to her kids. She should be ashamed.

Oh, FFS. Not this again. Please, please, please can we not have another mud-slinging session about the merits of stay at home mothers versus working mothers? It always seems to bring out the worst in people on these threads.

Exactly right! Cue lots of indignant stay-at-home mums giving their two-pence worth when they are not to whom Cherie's comment refer!

I did refer to her political aspirations, as she was reportedly the more strongly politically motivated of the two, and therefore she chose to give up something of considerable potential value to her in order to let her husband pursue his career.

I don't see a great deal of difference between the act giving up the opportunity of advancing a career in politics and giving up the opportunity of advancing any other kind of career - Mrs Blair was fortunate to have options, and her reported words could indicate that she may not fully understand that others are not in the same fortunate position.

I still think most people are missing the point...that to be a SAHM essentially means putting all ones eggs (however large or small they may be) into one basket.

I don't love my job. I got a great (i.e. well-paid) public-sector job straight after uni in 2001 when such jobs were still in abundance. It was easy and boring. It had a final salary pension scheme. I'm still there. It's got harder, I've moved up the ladder, some of the slack at the organisation has been shed. Had I quit in 2007 when my son was born, I may be looking to return to work later this year - 2012 - when he starts school. How hard would that be now? I regularly read applications for jobs in my department from graduates with 1sts from great unis, or women who've not worked for a few years due to motherhood, and they're applying for jobs 5 grades below the one i started in as a graduate. And they invariably don't get shortlisted because they won't "hot the ground running". We could give them a shot, but why would we when we've got 20 or so applications from people with all the up-to-date systems knowledge, etc? I don't have a profession - a degree in nursing or medicine - I could not easily pause my career for 5 years (or more, had I had more children) and then back on.

I think this is what Cherie is referring. To sacrifice my career - even if it meant being out of pocket childcare wise for a few years - would have been huge. It's not about having loads of money whilst bringing up your small children, it's about having a decent income for a lifetime - including old-age, and providing financial security to yourself, your children, your partner even should he lose his job.

It just makes sense doesn't it?

I can understand why women in (very) low-paid jobs, whose entire salary would be swallowed up by childcare and transport, might decide it is better to stay home and live on a single salary until their child goes to school since by going to work they wouldn't be increasing the family finances.

However, it completely mystifies me how and why couples on above-national-average wages also arrive at this decsion. Surely, if you pay £400-500 a month on childcare and earn a total of even £1000 a month, the extra money (not to mention the benefit to your career) is worth it?

The problem Cherie Booth addresed was that of women who see a career as "something to do until I have babies". My mother worked for an international bank when I was born in 1980 - she definitely earned more than my father, who was a glazier. Shortly after I was born, she gave up work and never went back. When I was a teenager and my dad was made redundant, she said she couldn't look for work as no-one would employ her after a 13-year gap. The underlying truth was that she thought a husband was there to bring in the money - quite a few of her friends had had to go back into work with only O Levels to their name following divorce.Her attitude always mystified me because my grandmother, who had four children, worked even though she didn't "need" to.

It sickens me when I meet women of my generation whose plan is to marry someone with a large enough salary that they don't need to work. I know very few women who would even consider a partner who earned the same as they do, let alone someone who earns less. Most of the people I've dated earned less than me - I wasn't selecting partners with a view to future subsidy.

In my view, this is an overlooked factor in the issue of pay equality. There is no point denying that a significant proportion of educated women expect to end up with a man who earns significantly more than they do and drop out of the job market at some point - this puts social pressure on men to earn more, and leads to a difficult situation for employers who have to balances these issues against compliance with the law.

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to read and comment upon my article.
I just wanted to clarify a few points.
First of all, one of the reasons I was inspired to write a response to Ms Booth’s comments, was because I felt she was tarring all stay-at-home mums with the same brush. The way she describes ‘yummy mummies’ is as women who ‘talk about being the best possible mother and they put all their effort into their children’, going on to say, ‘I also want to be the best possible mother, but I know my job as a mother includes bringing my children up so actually they can live without me’. By using the term ‘yummy mummies’ in place of ‘stay at home mums’ she makes the comment even worse than it already is, implying that any woman who stays at home to look after her children is vain, image-obsessed and, quite frankly, lazy. Even if this isn’t exactly what she meant, the impression given to the outside world is that stay-at-home mums don’t do a ‘proper’ job. That we’re taking the easy option. And that my giving up our time to look after them when they’re very small we were hindering their future ability to ‘live without us’. And I begged to differ.
Secondly, and in response to Ionie, I certainly would not describe myself as a ‘dependent’. The way I see it, a well-run family unit is a small business, with everyone taking an equal share of the tasks to be done. One of those tasks is looking after the children. And sure, it’s up to the individual parent to decide whether they want to hire an additional ‘member’ of the ‘business’, ie a nanny/nursery to look after the kids, or if they want to do it themselves. My husband and I made a joint decision that I should take on the role of looking after Oscar, while he continued with his job, as we thought it was the right decision for everyone involved (financially and emotionally). You could argue that my husband is as dependent on me as I am on him – I allow him to continue with his career while I do the equally important job of looking after our son during weekdays (although be assured he is an incredibly hands-on dad and does everything he can for Oscar in the mornings, evenings and at weekends – I wouldn’t have it any other way.) We are both grateful to have each other. And this set-up won’t continue forever. Oscar will be developmentally ready for nursery by the time he is 3 (in 6 months), which will allow me to resume my career, part-time, and on a freelance basis. This is what I always intended to do, and one of the reasons I became a journalist, a career I could fit round my family, and vice-versa. Writing articles like this one is the beginning of my return to the world of work.
Thirdly, in response to oommph: First just to say that my husband and I do not have separate bank accounts. Any money either of us make, or have made in the past, belongs equally to both of us. I don’t feel sorry for myself at all, nor am I in the least bit complacent. But I do have common sense: paying double what I earn in childcare simply doesn’t make sense to me – going out to work, knowing that the work you’re doing is actually COSTING the family more than you’re earning? Maybe some people would be happy with that, but I’d find it hard to motivate myself each morning. Going to work would seem like a luxury, and I have plenty of time in the future to resurrect my career, or even to find a completely new one, should I so choose. The few years when my children are very young are precious ones and I’m happy to forgo office life for as long as they truly need me. But that’s only part of the story. I passionately believe that giving your child what you believe is best for their development, especially in their formative, pre-school years, is vitally important for their future. In Oscar’s case, both my husband and I felt strongly that he would thrive best if I were to look after him. And for me, the highest priority is Oscar’s welfare right now. Do I miss going to work? Very much. Do I – and does my husband - believe I am doing the right thing by Oscar, and by our family? Absolutely. Fundamentally, the set-up my family has works for us. It might not be for everyone, but that’s fine. Each to their own. My problem is when people like Ms Booth attack other mothers who have chosen to take a different approach to childcare than their own.

I think you have very much misinterpreted her comments. Nobody is criticising a woman who chooses to take a career break and care for her children if that's what is right for her family. Her comments very clearly pertian to, I suppose what you could call 'career wives'. Those who have never had nor ever will have the intention to work and rely solely on the income of their husbands as a lifestyle choice rather than a childcare solution. Clearly you are not in this latter category and therefore interesting as your article may be, you perhaps are not the best person to counter her claims.

While I agree with both Cherie Booth and Emily Murray, what I wonder is where all of those satisfying and rewarding jobs are. In my 20 years I've come across only surly bosses and unsympathetic co-workers.

*pertain*

I wish we could, just for once, discuss working parents and stay at home parents instead of just the mothers. It's not fair to fathers to ignore their role in the family and it's not fair to mothers to put all of the burden of responsibility on their shoulders.

Surely the feminist movement has achieved a great deal in that women have the choice whether to go back to work or not, circumstances prevailing. Agreed that further work is needed to equal the pay gap, and to balance the gender divide on boards etc.

Also a note for fathers - they don't have it all. They can choose to continue their careers, work long hours, and miss out on their childrens youth, or they can take the foot off the progress accelerator and be home at 6 for bath and bedtime, and be involved in parenting. There is a difference between "providing for", and "being there for".

So, the issues really are work culture, and affordable child care provision. Part time work is completely undervalued, and people who get to the desks first and leave last are rewarded, regardless of their talent (we've all seen it happen). If childcare was more affordable, more women would be encouraged to go back to work to have something of a financial gain. Why would you reach manic levels of stress (whether you like your job or not!) to work, for no financial gain and miss a large chunk of your children because of it? Why would anyone expect someone to do this? Sure there are long term implications, and a huge talent loss, but its a very difficult decision to make, refer back to the first point I made!

Well said Emily. Cherie's comments were clumsy and clearly designed to foment reaction. She has unfairly drawn broad generalisations. It is sad so that so many people seem unwilling or unable to recognise this.

On the contrary I think Cherie's comments have been very specific and have never referred to people in Emily's situation. Cherie has hit the nail on the head and it's sad that people are twisting her comments in faux outrage over something which is not relevant to them.

A great article - totally agree as a full-time stay at home mum. I feel like I am doing the best possible job for my family which is raising my children. I am lucky enough that we can do this and that I have a husband who is supportive of me. And as for Mrs Blair, it's not about betraining feminist ideas, I had a choice and this is my choice and despite not always being an easy one, a choice that I stand by and one that should not be belittled and undermined by another woman (where is your feminist support Cherie??).

Of course I haven't researched her in depth - why should I? This is a comment thread - I'm not writing her autobiography. I did know re Derry Irvine actually - and it would be ludicrous beyond belief to think only that set of chambers (Matrix, I think) benefited from the HRA etc! What about Doughty Street, for one? That's not lack of research on your part - it's lack of understanding of lawyers. Do you think they passed the HRA to benefit Cherie?! Get real.

So she didn't in fact benefit any more than lots of human rights barristers, on your own admission. So your point doesn't work.

However, I have had personal experience of her which I'm not going to talk about here. The particular case I think she really showed her colours in was Re S, a far more important case than the minor ones you mentioned. I am not saying she might not make misjudgments - most barristers and judges do, at some point. My point is that she is very talented in relation to aspects of family law and human rights.