Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ

Labour would double paternity leave, and raise it to £260 a week - what do you think?

176 replies

KateMumsnet · 09/02/2015 09:39

Hello all

Labour has announced plans for a "Father's Month" which will double paid paternity leave from two to four weeks. They've also pledged to raise paternity pay by more than £100 per week to at least £260 a week - equivalent to the minimum wage.

Do tell us what you think - are these changes to be welcomed? How, if at all, would they have affected your family's experience in the first few weeks with a newborn?

OP posts:
aphrodites · 09/02/2015 09:43

It wouldn't have affected us, DH took took two weeks off when lo was born with a week of it being holiday time.

Whilst it's great that they're increasing the amount it would still be too small for us and we would have to rely on savings again.

Artandco · 09/02/2015 09:47

It's still a too small increase. No way could we afford to have had me on maternity pay and dh only getting £260 a week.

Dhs work luckily pays all fathers full time wage for 2 weeks anyway. And lets them add 2 weeks full paid holiday ontop if you wanted 4 weeks in one go. So x4 weeks potential full paid off, compared to the governments suggestion

Higheredserf · 09/02/2015 09:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Oodbrain · 09/02/2015 10:00

Dh wasn't able to take paternity either time but that wasn't a financial decision as we could afford the drop.
If I was to have another baby now which is never going to happen the finances would limit us. £260 is about what he gets anyway so we would be fine on that but couldn't afford it on £130.
And the more time the better.

Sallyingforth · 09/02/2015 10:02

All the parties are now making their pre-election promises.
After the election they will do what they are able, and that is something very different.

TeWiSavesTheDay · 09/02/2015 10:05

I think it's a great idea and would makes lot of people's finances a bit easier.

cleoteacher · 09/02/2015 10:19

I don't think it's the priority for what money should be spent on at the moment. More a luxury than something which is essential. Nice idea but money would be spent better elsewhere given the cuts being made.

Wouldn't effect us as dh self employed so no paternity pay anyway from gov. He's getting pull pay anyway but because if he's not there it's making no money so only a week off anyway.

UriGeller · 09/02/2015 10:20

I got less than that on maternity allowance. Are they going to raise the money the actual person who gave birth gets too?

atticusclaw · 09/02/2015 10:24

It would make very little difference. I am an employment lawyer and pay during paternity leave really isn't an issue that comes up as a barrier to taking time off. There are lots of other issues that make it difficult for fathers to take four weeks off work.

The maternity/paternity legislation is messed about with so frequently that it makes it very difficult for people to understand what they are entitled to. This is just a crowd pleaser. They should be spending their time focussing on the real issues like how to persuade the general population that they're competent to run the country after getting us into such an enormous mess last time. Most of us are sensible intelligent human beings and can see through the chat up lines. Just take a look at the recent income tax thread where 80 percent said they don't think we're taxed too highly.

JohnFarleysRuskin · 09/02/2015 10:32

I find it astounding that after the last two weeks when Labour's ability to attract business and keep the economy running have been all over the news, they announce this: another Labour give-away.

When I was pregnant, under Labour, I got £200 for 'fruit and veg'. Ridiculous. This is another Balls-gimick. It makes me laugh that Labour claim they had nothing to do with the economic crisis and yet they still continue on with no policies apart from spending money we don't have.

Viviennemary · 09/02/2015 10:35

It's a nonsense. A lot of people won't be able to afford to take it anyway. And I can't think of anything worse than a man under my feet all day when I have a newborn. Sorry they should go back to the drawing board. What a feeble sop.

Messygirl · 09/02/2015 10:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Showy · 09/02/2015 10:48

Quite the opposite of him being under my feet, I would have loved for dh to be allowed the opportunity to spend time with his new baby. Admittedly, I probably would have appreciated a little help post cs but I do think many fathers would like and benefit from more time with their new family dynamic. As it was, we couldn't afford more than a week and I was in labour for 3 days and in hospital for 2. So 2 days at home before dh went back to work. This would have helped us. DH would have been thrilled.

PatMullins · 09/02/2015 10:50

Still wouldn't be able to afford it

TheSkiingGardener · 09/02/2015 10:50

How the hell is that going to be paid for? It's a gimmick to sway voters but it's not good policy. It's hardly an unexpected circumstance after all.

BeCool · 09/02/2015 10:51

Would maternity leave pay also be "doubled" to £260 pw?

Or are they proposing it is just the man's paternity leave income doubled?

Which would be an absolute disastrous proposal from any political party, wouldn't it?

My P had 2 weeks paternity leave when DD2 was born (2011) on full pay.

atticusclaw · 09/02/2015 10:54

Maternity pay in the first six weeks is 90 percent of gross weekly earnings (although admittedly this might for some be less than £260)

Still a stupid gimmick.

BeCool · 09/02/2015 10:55

Having read the article, it seems it is just paternity pay they are planning to raise not SMP.

This would be enough to tip me over the edge and actually NOT vote for Labour for the first time in many many years.

Desperate, ill thought out, sexist, highly offensive, grasping for straws policy.

AliceinWinterWonderland · 09/02/2015 10:59

So basically they have to pay men more to entice them to stay home with their new family, but they're not worried about the level of the women's pay, as they're pretty much stuck with it, right?

FFS.

BeCool · 09/02/2015 10:59

But most mothers are off for way more than 6 weeks.

I was off work for 8 months and 6 months. Both times my ML was funded by SMP of around £120pw & my savings. The only was I could afford to take ML was to fund it myself.

XP didn't really see stepping up financially as his duty. Notice the X.

BeCool · 09/02/2015 11:01

So basically they have to pay men more to entice them to stay home with their new family, but they're not worried about the level of the women's pay, as they're pretty much stuck with it, right?

Yes this ^

And they are going to try and sell this as being "good for families", "good for women".

suzyrobot · 09/02/2015 11:02

It would have helped us a great deal both the extra time and the extra cash. Agree that Smp should be raised too

Showy · 09/02/2015 11:03

I actually do think it's fine to just address paternity leave. Well not fine but not insulting or awful. Brilliant if both could be looked at but it's a start. Paternity leave is inadequate and finding a way to help men spend time at home has more benefits than handing out jollies to the menz. It allows, nay expects that men can and should be more involved in childcare and huge numbers of women say the one thing they need in the very early days is more support. Better balanced provision would help with this. There is a long way to go and little pre-election promises are useless drops in an ocean. It is not sexist or highly offensive though. It's just not enough.

JuanFernandezTitTyrant · 09/02/2015 11:03

It would have been completely pointless in my house. DS born Monday, I was in hospital until Thursday and by Sunday DH was getting restless and finding DIY to do. He also worked from home. His clients (and he) just didn't see that time as sacrosanct the way that some seem to think it should be. Even if he had been entitled to it, he would never gave taken a month off. Would be more useful to have the option to split the time and take, say, a week and then another week when we wanted or needed it.

Showy · 09/02/2015 11:09

So basically they have to pay men more to entice them to stay home with their new family

No. In our situation and in thousands of others, it's not about enticing but enabling. We would have grabbed the opportunity for dh to stay at home and not leave me 4 days post cs with a baby and older child and fuck all support. But we'd have defaulted on our mortgage and ended up homeless. DH would be offended by your assertions that he needed enticing by financial gain.

Swipe left for the next trending thread