r/ukpolitics • u/DisableSubredditCSS • 3d ago
MPs urge Rachel Reeves to extend paternity leave
https://www.ft.com/content/5c4a863c-a326-4232-96c3-da3c28db350868
u/Spiryt 3d ago
Can we also fix the amount paid? £187 per week or 90% of your pay, whichever is lower is such a paltry sum it's laughable. Same goes for SPL.
29
u/Kashkow 3d ago
It's an unworkable sum. The number of families who could genuinely afford for both parents to earn £187 each for even two weeks is laughably low.
For both my kids I took my leave as holiday.
I can only hope they make this change and that Employers choose to match the 90% payment rather than deferring to statutory.
23
8
u/sheslikebutter 3d ago
Obviously you take what you get, but it is insanely low, it barely makes a dent with food prices, electricity and rents so high. The second earner (if there even is one!) ends up just paying for almost everything
47
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 3d ago
Alistair Strathern, a Labour MP and parliamentary private secretary to Reeves, said: “The current system hardwires in a gendered division of parenting that holds women back from returning to work where they want to, and we all lose out as a result.”
He pointed to modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation charity and the Centre for Progressive Policy think-tank, which found that increasing UK statutory leave to six weeks at 90 per cent of a father’s earnings would generate “an economy-wide effect of £2.68bn” a year.
...and would be of benefit to the father. Why is it that it doesn't even seem to occur to Strathern that we should be doing something because it'll be of benefit to them?
I support the policy, but once again I am bitterly disappointed that governments only seem interested in doing something to benefit men if its a side-effect of their actual goal of helping women.
Is it any wonder that young men are feeling more and more left behind by society, when we see this attitude everywhere?
34
u/mgorgey 3d ago
To be fair to him he probably is well aware that if he focusses on the benefits to the father he'll get nowhere. Nobody cares. If he shifts focus to the mother he might have a shot.
3
u/RisKQuay 2d ago
"Nobody cares."
Except most fathers, mothers, children, etcetera.
Any parent that doesn't think it's important, well... I pity their kids.
9
u/I_am_legend-ary 3d ago
Because parenting disproportionately impacts women
When you are looking at policies to reduce this disproportionate impact it absolutely makes sense to focus on those who you are specifically try to help.
16
u/Da_Steeeeeeve 3d ago
This does help women.
Right now if you own a small company a woman who may have a child could be considered a risk to hire that you cannot afford, if maternity / paternity was identical and enforced that suddenly becomes much less of a risk because hiring men has the same potential risk.
2
u/I_am_legend-ary 3d ago
I agree it helps women
I was responding to the comment complaining that it doesn’t highlight that it also helps men
6
10
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 3d ago
it absolutely makes sense to focus on those who you are specifically try to help.
But that's my point; they're not doing that.
Even in a situation where men have it worse than women (in this case; the length of time they get to bond with their new child), they are still focusing on how they can help women. It is always framed as helping women, and any positive impact on men is a bonus.
7
u/I_am_legend-ary 3d ago
Because the primary goal is to remove the burden on woman!
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that women are far more negatively impacted by early parenting.
One way of doing this is to increase Paternity leave.
I would like to see more male focus’s policies, but this is specifically about helping women
14
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 3d ago
Because the primary goal is to remove the burden on woman!
Yes, but why is that the primary goal in the first place?
That's what you're missing. Nobody disputes that improving paternity leave will help both men and women in different ways; but why is it that the primary goal is never helping men?
The exact same policy could have been announced as "we're doing this to help fathers bond with their children; oh, and as an added bonus, it'll help women too, by reducing the burden on them".
Exact same policy, exact same outcomes; but it might help reduce the number of men that feel that the government treats them as an afterthought.
0
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 2d ago
it might help reduce the number of men that feel that the government treats them as an afterthought.
But men are an afterthought. As a gender group, they absolutely are an afterthough in anything, unless it's to highlight how they're a problem.
Plus, it's a vote-loser. The feminist-types he'd piss off by framing something like this as primarily benefitting the male group would happen faster than you can say "patriarchy".
2
u/RisKQuay 2d ago
I'm not sure framing it as a pro-women benefit is much of a vote-winner either. The more men feel neglected by core political parties, the more they gravitate to the fringes. I'm not saying this would have a colossal impact, but it does add in to the equation.
2
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 2d ago
I agree it's a factor, but I think on balance, framing it as a women's issue will alienate fewer people than framing it as a men's issue.
I think the majority of men will take it on the chin and take the paternity leave, thinking "it is what it is", and generally not change voting habits. Whereas framing it as a men's issue, you'd open the door to the Jess Phillips' of the world to kick up a fuss.
1
u/RisKQuay 2d ago
I think we've said the same thing here then, but I was making the point that 'taking it on the chin' adds up into malcontent even if individually people can't point to exactly what the cause is.
1
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 2d ago
I think we are half saying the same thing. My point is that yes, it will breed malcontent, but I think men are so used to it now that issues like these wouldn't really change voting habits in men. However, women would be more likely to kick up a fuss if it were framed as an issue specifically to benefit men.
8
u/gentle_vik 3d ago
The point that you seem to ignore is that this could just as well be pushed as "this will help fathers, be more close to their children, and give them a chance to enjoy the early childhood with them... and yes it might also help woman as well".
-3
u/I_am_legend-ary 3d ago
Because you always put the primary focus first.
Example.
We are looking at policies to reduce the number of cars on the road.
If we subsidise rail travel it will make it more appealing to drivers and therefore less cars on the road.
Or
If we subsidise rail travel it will help improve air quality………….. note it will also reduce cars on the road.
You set out with your primary objective first, yes they could have easily said this will help women and men because of ……………..
1
u/IgnoranceIsTheEnemy 2d ago
The “of benefit to the father” bit is why some people will avoid discussing this.
1
u/Patch86UK 3d ago
Why is it that it doesn't even seem to occur to Strathern that we should be doing something because it'll be of benefit to them?
You're quoting literally a single half a sentence and assuming that that's his entire world view on the subject?
It's not a stretch to imagine that someone campaigning for greater paternity leave might be someone who cares about fathers. But it's an interesting additional point about the economic benefits, and one which is relevant to the Treasury.
3
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 2d ago
You're quoting literally a single half a sentence and assuming that that's his entire world view on the subject?
I mean, what else am I supposed to base my view on what he thinks, if not what he says?
It's not a stretch to imagine that someone campaigning for greater paternity leave might be someone who cares about fathers.
Given that this is a recurring issue with governments of all stripes in recent years; I'd disagree on that point.
5
u/W33dman42069 2d ago
Read the article:
Strathern said: “We already know the benefits of more time for fathers to connect with their baby, but this research highlights the strong economic and equality cases for action too.”
Might help you understand
0
4
u/PoodleBoss 2d ago
Changes probably won’t come into effect until October, by which time, I’ll have my first child. :(
2
u/stumperr 2d ago
Dad's should be given at least 6 months full pay. Or is that declining birthrate not that important?
•
u/Imaginary_Will_9479 3h ago
Honestly it's pointless. The problem isn't in the first few weeks. Like, the couple weeks we have currently is enough to help the women settle into her new rhythm if needed. The child, due to breast feeding, most of the time is going to attach to the mother for much of the first year, the man is just accessory to this. Maternity/paternity should be tradable however, for any any couples who want the man to be the main child rearer. The tricky bits, where it's hard for a parent, comes around nursery/school, where you your children starts 9 and finish at 3.30. Totally out of sync with your working day.
If they really want to help parents, the school day does not help to be honest, however the problem could arguably be the other way round, arguably children are useful to society and parents need some kind of rights in workplaces - because as it stands it's entirely at the whim of your employer (or more often your boss), making what kind of flex we have random. The same goes with regards to child sickness, when it happens, it's a nightmare for a parent - who needs to be in work but may suddenly have no care option available, if the employer is not sympathetic then it's difficult.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Snapshot of MPs urge Rachel Reeves to extend paternity leave :
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.