There was a point in that interview that I wanted to return to, but I have been too busy with work this week.
That point is this:
And he pledged to take on those with the "sepia-tinted 1950s" opinion that mothers should not work, after attacks on his City lawyer wife Miriam, claiming her critics are as "weird" as homophobes.Nick is right to be angry at attacks on his wife, but the rest of the argument is odd.
Who are these people who believe mothers should not work? Perhaps you come across them if you spend too long reading the comments on the Daily Mail website, but I don't meet them in real life. Perhaps Nick does, but surely it is possible to disagree with people without calling them "weird"?
But there is a more important point here. Far from there being pressure on mothers not to work, the reverse is true.
For a family to maintain what most regard as a comfortable way of life now takes two full-time incomes - just look at house prices. This is an enormous change from the position in the 1950s. I suspect one cause was Nigel Lawson's tax changes in the 1980s, but no doubt there are many others.
This change has liberated many women - though not all jobs are as fulfilling as being a City lawyer. But somehow the idea that feminism would liberate men by family structures more flexible has been lost. Now everyone works full time.
The collectivisation of childcare has its roots in this too. The right, far from believing a woman's place is in the home, tend to believe that life is about making money. The left are just pleased to see children spending more time in state-approved institutions.
But when I see them arriving at school in the nursery minibus, I can't help feeling they are paying the price.