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

[KateMumsnet]

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?

Sorry cba to rtft, I know I know! It would have helped us when we had dd, but now dh's current employer provide 2 weeks with full pay. I'm somewhat cynical though and can't see them actually coming through with this.

I don't actually reckon many men would take this up.

They are funding it with the cut in tax credits which they are off setting with free childcare which they are, I presume, paying for with magic beans or unicorn shit?????

It should be identical to SMP at that stage, ie 90% wage. - I agree. Just set it to the same value as SMP then it isn't sexist. However that would be completely unaffordable.
I was lucky in that I had three weeks fully paid paternity leave when both of my kids were born. However, it was my observation that when I went back to work it was much easier to establish a routine and the baby started sleeping better - possible because certain things had to be done at given times because of the working day. It may have been coincidence though. What I am trying to say is that a partner going back to work when the baby is under four weeks old isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If Osbourne can up the availability of 4% return pensioner-only bonds by £5bn, and extend the application deadline until cough 1 week after the election, I think the far cheaper enhanced paternity rights will be doable.

I was lucky that I recovered quickly from an emergency C and had a good baby so maybe that is unusual.

I would have much preferred it if DH could have taken his paternity leave in dribs and drabs in the first 3 months, say, rather than the "use it in one go or lose it".

What did we do with during his paternal leave? I sat with my daughter asleep on my lap for quite a bit of time reading the last Harry Potter book and watching DVD boxed sets. DD catalogued 2,500+ digital photos we'd had sitting around on the computer!

I'm not sure we'd still be married if we'd both been cooped up the the house together for 4 weeks.

I don't get it.

Why would you want two people at home for a month with a newborn?

2 weeks of having dp under my feet was plenty for me even with twins,he just took two weeks holiday.

What is the point of wasting shed loads of money( we don't have) on this?

Am I not getting something?

A double whammy for single mothers who don't have the support from a baby's father and don't have the household income boosted by £260 per week.

But women are only worth half as much, obviously, as they're just caring for the baby full time whereas the father is doing household-chores-while-in-possession-of-a-penis. It's clear they deserve twice as much pay.

Oh and for women saying they can't afford to stay at home with smp we'll surely the answer is go back to work? I went back half time at 4-5 months will all of mine as I couldn't afford not to. A year off is a luxury and I'm afraid anyone moaning they can't afford it needs to look at going back. I'd love to be a sahm but I need to earn and therefore I need to work.

A year off of being with your newborn is a luxury- jeez

And this is progress.

I'm pretty sure that single mothers don't miss out, the £260 for four weeks is nothing compared to the benefits single mothers get. Only those who are high earners will miss out but then being single does only mean one income anyway.

It's a different world if posters can't survive for one month on £1040 plus maternity pay and possibly CB. What kind of lifestyle are people needing to sustain?

Soon - erm our London rent to start with. 1 bed flat. £1040 would barely cover 1/2 the rent. Then we need to heat/ eat/lights/ etc

Well actually lepetit yes I think it is. It's a luxury I would have loved but the fact is we could not have managed on smp. So in my case I had to go back to work and I'd see a year off as a luxury. Maybe not for everyone but for me. And I strongly feel I would have had no right to sit around complaining about money being tight when I had the option to go back to work.

Soon our mortgage bills etc are far more than that!

Sorry I think it's a fucked up world if having a year with your newborn is deemed as a luxury.

Well I'd agree it's a fucked up wirld indeed. I won't argue with you there.

But working from that point and accepting it is fucked up the fact is myself and undoubtedly plenty of other women couldn't afford a year off. I Don't work for any reason but to provide food and a safe home etc and occasional treats. I'm green with envy at women that stay at home. But as I said before I couldn't complain about money if I was choosing not to work.

The thing with maternity and paternity leave existing is that there is no compulsion for you to take it. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

A lot of countries with leave reserved for each parent allow single parents to use it all. So if we followed their lead single parents would get an extra few weeks of higher paid leave as well as their own allowance? Not sure if that's what labour propose though.

I think the point, LePetit is other people funding a year with your newborn. You can take as long as you like as far as I'm concerned, if you are funding it.

I do think with the economic climate being what it is, there are more important things that need to be funded before this luxury.

I agree backfor. I wouldn't have expected the government to fund me having a year off even though that would have been great. Far more pressing needs such as the NHS being on its knees.

I agree.

That said I took a lot longer than a year off and complained of lack of cash just the same as wp who pay for childcare do.Funding the care of your child however you do it sahp or childcare costs.

If you're hard up you're hard up,no sin in voicing in.

I just don't get why this is being held up as amazingly good.2 weeks extra when the vast majority of mums will want to be at home anyway in those previous first few months.Funding two to be at home seems like a big waste of cash that could be spent on other things.

Can somebody explain what I'm not getting.I'm clearly missing something.

Bloody hell. I only took two weeks off and I was the mother! But then I am now one of those pensioners being bribed (apparently) by savings offers, so maybe there is justice after all

They say that they are going to finance it by making savings to tax credits.

So they are taking the money from an area that is useful and needed and instead using it to fund a gimmick.

So, MN have asked us our opinions on this, and it seems to me that the majority view is "nice idea, but pie-in-the-sky" and we can't afford it and dh would drive me nuts in two weeks, let alone four.

But then Justine went on the ITN news prog at lunchtime and said MN supports it.

Art I understand that but you have 9 months to save. Children are expensive why not allow for the lower income when planning a child.