THERE are few phrases I hate more than "stay-at-home-mum", especially when it's prefixed by "she's only a..." or even worse "I'm only a...". It's a totally dismissive, patronising and disrespectful way of describing a job that would leave many so-called captains of industry exhausted and begging to go back to the boardroom for a cup of sweet tea, a bourbon biscuit and a bit of a sit down.

Some breadwinners still believe that while they spend their days flipping flip-charts and yelling "two sugars please, Tracey love" their other half is at home with their feet up, Chardonnay in one hand, packet of chocolate Hobnobs in the other, watching Richard & Judy.

But if this is what a stay-at-home-mum does, who is it that gets the kids up, washed, dressed and fed; who is it that does the washing, ironing, dusting, hoovering, cleaning and shopping; who is it that collects the kids from school, takes them to their numerous clubs and classes, and acts as an unpaid nanny for all their friends; and who is it that makes a hot meal and a cold gin and tonic for the weary worker every evening before massaging their back and their ego?

When I had my son I decided to go back to work part-time, partly because I enjoy working (and the money you get for doing it) but mainly because I knew I just couldn't hack staying at home. Part-time work is a doddle compared to being a full-time mum.

And it is with this in mind that I raise my glass of Chardonnay, which I just happen to have close at hand, to Jacqueline Cowan, a woman who decided against a career and chose instead to stay at home to raise her two sons while her husband Michael made his fortune by inventing the bin liner (not quite on a par with the wheel perhaps but a money-spinner nonetheless).

After 35 years the Cowan marriage collapsed. But when the time came to split the family fortune, all £12 million of it, Jacqueline found her share was consider-ably smaller than her former husband's - a staggering £8,450,000 smaller.

So she decided to fight for her right to a fair share and just a few days ago the Appeal Court upped her cash settlement to £3 million and threw in a couple of properties for good measure to take the final total to around £4.4 million. But it's still not half, is it?

And that is why Jacqueline is now considering taking her fight to the House of Lords, claiming that it is no longer about money - £4.4 million is more than enough for anyone - it is a matter of principle.

She might not have matched her husband penny for penny and pound for pound during their 35 years together but she did invest considerably more time and effort into successfully raising their family and looking after their home.

She was an equal partner in the marriage and now all she wants is equality under the law. And you know, she might just get it.

Last year the House of Lords made a landmark ruling which said that wives should have a fairer share of the spoils when marriages end in divorce. Maybe now, a year older and a year wiser, the Lords will throw caution to the wind and rule that a fairer share simply isn't good enough and that only an equal share will do.

I BET there's a warm welcome awaiting unexpected guests at the Hague household. If Wee Willy's narrow-minded views on asylum seekers are anything to go by, surprise visitors are probably shoved unceremoniously into the broom cupboard before they've even had a chance to wave through the serving hatch into the kitchenette where Ffion is cooking a f-fry-up.

You have to have a very good excuse for arriving unannounced at the door of Tory Towers, only fire, flood or famine will really do. And if you have the gall to ask for a cup of sugar, don't be surprised if you are frog-marched back down the garden path and told to f-f-flippin' well get back to where you came from.