Labour to double paternity leave

[wellquickwoody]

and increase paternity pay to £260 per week if elected. Luckily they won't be so that will not happen.

But really.......is that the best they can do? The party that is known for repeatedly screwing the economy wants to offer more free money for people to sit on their arse for longer? Come this way Mr Milliband, the gangplank is just through here..........

 

[Triggaaar]

But really.......is that the best they can do? The party that is known for repeatedly screwing the economy wants to offer more free money for people to sit on their arse for longer?

There's a joke there somewhere, but I can't see it. If that were Labour's trump card, you'd have a point, but it's just a small thing they want to do, right? I can't see the problem with it.

 

[Notters]

A fail to see how it can be legal the way it is anyway. It's supposed to be fully transferable from 5th April, but women still get 6 weeks at 90% pay, men certainly do not.

wants to offer more free money for people to sit on their arse for longer?

Yes, because there's no value in fathers having time to bond with their children is there?!

I'm no labour supporter by the way.

 

[Ernest]

It's certainly a better policy than buying rich OAP's votes by giving them a far greater interest vote for their savings than anyone else gets

 

[Don Quixote]

Sounds like a good policy to me.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Yes, because there's no value in fathers having time to bond with their children is there?!

Bonding, with a days old infant? Do me a favour, dad is hardly breast feeding is he? Four weeks later he's back at work and baby forgets about him until they start to see and hear the world around them with slightly more clarity.

And the reality is that somebody else, not the childs own parents, will have to pick up the bill for this. Is that how the world works now, you get somebody else to pay your bills for you?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

and increase paternity pay to £260 per week if elected. Luckily they won't be so that will not happen.

But really.......is that the best they can do? The party that is known for repeatedly screwing the economy wants to offer more free money for people to sit on their arse for longer? Come this way Mr Milliband, the gangplank is just through here..........

I don't have a problem with the idea - I'd have liked to be able to do this when my children were born - but in reality most families can't afford to lose that much pay while the father takes paternity leave. I was entitled to 2 weeks but couldn't afford to take it via paternity leave so just took paid holiday instead.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

If starting from scratch you would try and design things so that all parents could bring up their children in the most optimal ways possible.

Our world is so screwed up with free markets and greed that we are light years away from this ideal.

Typical of Labour to try and do something sensible to redress the balance.

 

[RexCathedra]

This is the sort of policy that has led to the collapse of the Swedish and Danish economies.
(Per capita income, 2012, dollars PPP)

Thank God you don't have to live in one of those Socialist hellholes.

9	Sweden	42,865
10	Denmark	42,787
16	France	36,933
—	OECD average	36,847[SUP]e[/SUP]
17	United Kingdom	35,671

 

[Notters]

Bonding, with a days old infant? Do me a favour, dad is hardly breast feeding is he? Four weeks later he's back at work and baby forgets about him until they start to see and hear the world around them with slightly more clarity.

It's actually just as much (if not more) for the father than for the baby. By having close contact with their newborn they form a bond that lasts for life. Fathers also experience significant hormonal changes.

Not only that, but the mother is likely to need quite a bit of support in the first few weeks, for a number of reasons (difficult births, post natal depression, first child, looking after other kids, etc.)

And the reality is that somebody else, not the childs own parents, will have to pick up the bill for this. Is that how the world works now, you get somebody else to pay your bills for you?

That's a very short-termist view. Having happy fathers and children = better more productive work = stronger economy.

 

[Stat Brother]

Raheem Sterling will never work again.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Giving MORE time and MORE money to new fathers seems a slightly odd thing to get worked up about.

My flapjack arrived to me BROKEN in it's packaging. Now that's an issue.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I wonder what the real consequences of extended paternity leave will be. With just a few days leave the bloke is around long enough for his partner to get over the act of birth and regain her health, a bit of a chance for the family to come and see the baby and that's it.

If it goes beyond a few weeks then the bloke will find himself doing routine chores and when it comes to returning to work his partner will have to pick up the slack. I can see that might cause problems for both parties.

I'm probably in the minority but I think things are fine as they are, extending the leave will just give employers more of a headache.

 

[Triggaaar]

Bonding, with a days old infant? Do me a favour, dad is hardly breast feeding is he? Four weeks later he's back at work and baby forgets about him until they start to see and hear the world around them with slightly more clarity.

Fathers don't have to take their paternity leave on the day of the birth. They could take it early, and care for the child if the mum's not well, or they could take it a bit later, give the mum a break, bond with their child etc.

And the reality is that somebody else, not the childs own parents, will have to pick up the bill for this. Is that how the world works now, you get somebody else to pay your bills for you?

The reality is that you need to have a job in order to get paternity leave, which means you're going to be paying taxes that pay the bills for other people.

Of all the hairbrained ideas the parties are going to put foreward before the election, this is the best you could come up with. You didn't think this rant through did you.

 

[Notters]

Fathers don't have to take their paternity leave on the day of the birth. They could take it early, and care for the child if the mum's not well, or they could take it a bit later, give the mum a break, bond with their child etc.

and as of 5th April, can do both.

 

[Triggaaar]

and as of 5th April, can do both.

Cool. I'm off to make another baby!

 

[wellquickwoody]

Fathers also experience significant hormonal changes.

Jeez, no wonder our enemies see us as soft and weak.

the mother is likely to need quite a bit of support in the first few weeks, for a number of reasons (difficult births, post natal depression, first child, looking after other kids, etc.)

We are already allowing fathers to take some time off to help with this, but now we need to DOUBLE it? How did any of us ever make it through without these indispensible benefits and comforts in the past?

Having happy fathers and children = better more productive work = stronger economy.

That is the same argument that everyone who is asking for extra wages/benefits for no extra effort uses. It carries no weight whatsoever without relevant research to back it up.

 

[wellquickwoody]

The reality is that you need to have a job in order to get paternity leave, which means you're going to be paying taxes that pay the bills for other people.

It is still an extra something that needs to be funded.

You didn't think this rant through did you.

No rant required, just pointing out that extra spending needs to be funded from somewhere/someone else.

 

[Triggaaar]

It is still an extra something that needs to be funded.

Yes it is, but you said 'the reality is that somebody else, not the childs own parents, will have to pick up the bill for this', and I disagree, as the child's parents are paying their taxes. And have you looked up exactly how much this is going to cost?

No rant required, just pointing out that extra spending needs to be funded from somewhere/someone else.

'The party that is known for repeatedly screwing the economy wants to offer more free money for people to sit on their arse for longer?' sounds a bit ranty to me. If you were just joking, fair enough (although I still don't get the joke), but if you were being serious then I think you're mistaken, as I don't think employed new fathers are just sitting on their arse.

 

[Seasidesage]

Idea is a fair one there is nothing to wrong with incremental gains in working conditions for all, otherwise we would all still be looking at poorhouses and starving children etc.

The timing though when all parties are committed to huge public spending cuts on essential services is frankly insane. Is this really the best use of a severely limited public budget?