While it may cost a bit because, on the average, the man will be earning more, it costs much less than other forms of “equalisation” between maternity and paternity leave.
Furthermore it virtually removes the incentive to favour males over equally able females in terms of hiring.
Harman take note: This is how to approach the equality agenda. More freedom for couples, not more offences on the statute book.
Clegg: "its patronsing to women" that they should look after their baby. Raised a luagh in our office, that one. More legislation and time wasted on the trivial interests of the small in number metropolitan middle-class elite.
Even from a fool like Clegg this is just too stupid for words!
It is also contradictory in that it is hinted that the Coalition are to increase the qualification for employment protection two 2 years and make applicants to Industrial Tribunals pay a fee thus reducing employee's rights vis a vis their employers. However there is the abolition of the right to terminate employment when a worker reaches 65 which is not helpful to business and now this nonsense. Talk about a lack of joined up Government. All I can say about the Colaition is to quote François Rabelias, "ring down the curtain the farce is over" and the sooner the better!
Does the father have to be married to the mother or at least living with her? If the father has several children from different women does he get paternity leave for each one? How is the father to be identified?
Do Muslims get paternity leave for each of their four wives (or rather one wife and three "dependents")?
Do Eastern European men get paternity leave if the children remain in Eastern Europe?
Do rich bankers get the full paid paternity leave even if their wives are not working?
What about the self employed?
Why does the state pay more generous rates of maternity leave to high earning women than to ordinary women (e.g. nurses)? Will bankers thus get a higher rate of paternity pay than bricklayers? If so, is this not yet another example, first identified by William Gladstone, of the poor paying taxes to subsidise the rich?
How can our industry compete in world markets with yet another “equalities” albatross round its neck?
Are all our political class stark raving bonkers or only most of them?
I posted my comments and personal opinion but it was deleted.
I do not agree with Nick as his priorities in government are embarrassing and are making fools of the British people and especially men.
I would like to ask Mr. Clegg, how he thinks that small businesses are going to survive if his wish is granted.
Better still, how about Mr. Clegg demonstrates that he really is a bright young man and goes and asks - not one, not two, but dozens of different sized small businesses, how they are going to cope - especially in the present climate, where prices are driving small businesses to the wall as it is!!!!!!!
When is Miriam taking over as Lib Dem leader?
Posted by: It doesn't add up... | January 17, 2011 at 03:20 PM
A very sensible idea.
While it may cost a bit because, on the average, the man will be earning more, it costs much less than other forms of “equalisation” between maternity and paternity leave.
Furthermore it virtually removes the incentive to favour males over equally able females in terms of hiring.
Harman take note: This is how to approach the equality agenda. More freedom for couples, not more offences on the statute book.
Posted by: England's green and pleasant | January 17, 2011 at 03:31 PM
Clegg: "its patronsing to women" that they should look after their baby. Raised a luagh in our office, that one. More legislation and time wasted on the trivial interests of the small in number metropolitan middle-class elite.
Posted by: Winston Smith | January 17, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Are men going to have NHS operations to enable them to breast feed?
Posted by: It doesn't add up... | January 17, 2011 at 04:04 PM
Even from a fool like Clegg this is just too stupid for words!
It is also contradictory in that it is hinted that the Coalition are to increase the qualification for employment protection two 2 years and make applicants to Industrial Tribunals pay a fee thus reducing employee's rights vis a vis their employers. However there is the abolition of the right to terminate employment when a worker reaches 65 which is not helpful to business and now this nonsense. Talk about a lack of joined up Government. All I can say about the Colaition is to quote François Rabelias, "ring down the curtain the farce is over" and the sooner the better!
Posted by: Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street! | January 17, 2011 at 04:10 PM
Does the father have to be married to the mother or at least living with her? If the father has several children from different women does he get paternity leave for each one? How is the father to be identified?
Do Muslims get paternity leave for each of their four wives (or rather one wife and three "dependents")?
Do Eastern European men get paternity leave if the children remain in Eastern Europe?
Do rich bankers get the full paid paternity leave even if their wives are not working?
What about the self employed?
Why does the state pay more generous rates of maternity leave to high earning women than to ordinary women (e.g. nurses)? Will bankers thus get a higher rate of paternity pay than bricklayers? If so, is this not yet another example, first identified by William Gladstone, of the poor paying taxes to subsidise the rich?
How can our industry compete in world markets with yet another “equalities” albatross round its neck?
Are all our political class stark raving bonkers or only most of them?
Well, someone had to ask!
Posted by: David MacDonald | January 17, 2011 at 04:16 PM
I posted my comments and personal opinion but it was deleted.
I do not agree with Nick as his priorities in government are embarrassing and are making fools of the British people and especially men.
Posted by: robert | January 17, 2011 at 05:44 PM
good stuff, although as this points out, in Sweden only 20% of the 16 months allocated to fathers for paternity leave is ever used..
http://www.babyandfather.com/paternity/paternity.html
Posted by: jim | January 17, 2011 at 07:54 PM
Jim, I bet over here in the UK they would use every last minute of it!
Posted by: Martin Marprelate- A Man in the Street! | January 17, 2011 at 08:15 PM
Has Clegg ever run a business or been a manager in one?
Posted by: michael mcgough | January 17, 2011 at 08:25 PM
I would like to ask Mr. Clegg, how he thinks that small businesses are going to survive if his wish is granted.
Better still, how about Mr. Clegg demonstrates that he really is a bright young man and goes and asks - not one, not two, but dozens of different sized small businesses, how they are going to cope - especially in the present climate, where prices are driving small businesses to the wall as it is!!!!!!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | January 17, 2011 at 09:11 PM