Do men really want more paternity leave?
Reynolds, a father of four, must know that paternity leave take-up in this country is notoriously poor: only 59 per cent of fathers took paternity leave after the birth or adoption of a child, with many citing the low rate of statutory pay (£187.18 per week) as the reason. Nearly two decades after the establishment of paternity leave in this country, research conducted by University College London suggests that the UK has the least generous paternity leave entitlement in Europe. Apparently, as a nation, we have some serious Daddy issues.
But let me flip this on its head for a moment. What if the barriers to paternity leave are not economic? What if fathers don't want to take paternity leave beyond two weeks because they want to preserve traditional gendered roles in a partnership? What if – and this is truly unfashionable to say – fathers want to care for their children from the relatively distant pulpit of the paterfamilias? Can paternal love still take place if a father observes his offspring sleeping peacefully in the evening as he loosens his tie? Must modern paternal love be predicated on a father singing 'Wind the Bobbin Up' at Monkey Music?
Contemporary wisdom holds not, laying 'toxic masculinity', damaged children and depressed fathers at the door of current paternity leave directives. The Guardian reports that 'bad policy' has far-reaching implications, citing a report from Georgetown University that posits that the children of 'traditionalised' couples find it hard to bond with their fathers. For their part, fathers who only take two weeks of paternity leave are at risk of 'poor mental health' according to Elliott Rae, founder of campaign group Parenting Out Loud. If reports are to be believed, fathers who choose to head to the relative safety of work after two weeks of nappy-changing and baby rocking, are going to hell in a handcart, their children total strangers to them.
As ever, allow me to counter this argument with my own experience. After the birth of our first child, my husband took the weekend off before he went back to work, kissing the new and very noisy occupant of our flat goodbye at 6 a.m. Although he was entitled to two weeks of paternity leave, he chose not to take it up, something I am quite sure had nothing to do with the 'stigma' of paternity leave or the back-slapping bravado of Goldman Sachs bankers who congratulate their colleagues who return to the desk straight from the labour ward. Put simply, I think he needed – and wanted – to go back to work. I believe that his much fretted over mental health was better because of it and, by extension, mine.
Did I worry for his future bond with his new daughter? Not a bit of it. We both understood that the equilibrium of the household would be far better if someone got to maintain their sense of 'normal' and furthermore that not all 'Daddy' bonds are established at 3 a.m. in a darkened nursery. Fatherhood, after all, is a long game. The noisy baby is now seven and thinks that Daddy is, quite simply, the best person in the world ever: 'I'm sorry, Mummy, but he's just funnier than you'. Fine; great!
When our second child was born, my husband did take two weeks of paternity leave, partly because I needed someone to do the school run. My memory of this time is rather diffuse, but I recall us eating crisps and watching several disturbing documentaries on Bitcoin and Jimmy Savile while the baby slept in the middle of the day. I did not, as I recall, experience any extreme euphoric uplift in my mental health because he was there and I certainly don't think that the gender revolution or pay gap in the home could have been altered in those two weeks or – heaven forbid – any longer.
So, how do you solve a problem like contemporary fatherhood? Maybe we could apply the wind the bobbin up approach: 'wind it back again, wind it back again', and see if the old 'Trad Dad' bobbin was any better. It couldn't, at any rate, be worse than the current bobbin: pulled in so many different directions that it risks unravelling altogether.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
a day ago
- Times
Jonathan Reynolds rules out ‘daft' wealth tax and says ‘get serious'
The business secretary has ruled out a 'daft' wealth tax as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that other taxes will have to rise. Jonathan Reynolds told Labour backbenchers to 'get serious', dismissing the idea as a populist gesture that would not work. Lord Kinnock, Labour's former leader, has led calls for a 2 per cent annual levy on assets more than £10 million, which has been backed publicly by more than a dozen Labour MPs and privately many more. Rachel Reeves has been reluctant to rule out a wealth tax despite senior minsters privately concluding it would not work. • How could a UK wealth tax work? The impact examined Now Reynolds has made the government's most explicit public criticism by ridiculing the suggestion that a 'magic wealth tax' would dig the country out of a hole. He said an effective wealth tax 'doesn't exist anywhere in the world' and 'we're not going to do anything daft like that'. Reynolds told GB News: 'I say to people: 'Be serious about this.' The idea you can just levy everyone … What if your wealth was not in your bank account, what if it was in fine wine or art? How would we tax that? This is why this doesn't exist. 'There's a lot of populism out about this, and I'm frustrated. I see colleagues sometimes say this in parliament and I say: 'Come on, get serious.'' Reynolds said: 'This Labour government has increased taxes on wealth as opposed to income — the taxes on private jets, private schools, changes through inheritance tax, capital gains tax. But the idea there's a magic wealth tax, some sort of levy … that doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Switzerland has a levy, but they don't have capital gains or inheritance tax.' Experts, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, have warned the government that no country has raised significant sums from a wealth tax, citing concerns over valuing assets and discouraging investment. Most countries that have introduced them have since abandoned them. However, Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, who delivered a petition on the tax to No 10 this week, said that 'the government has seriously damaged its own support by refusing to tax wealth — all while cutting support for disabled people, targeting the winter fuel allowance, and maintaining the cruel two-child benefit cap.' It came as the IMF said in its annual report on Britain that the chancellor would need to make 'tough fiscal choices' such as raising taxes on middle earners, scrapping the triple lock on pensions or introducing charges for the NHS. While it praised Reeves for 'growth-friendly' policies such as liberalisation of planning and said an 'economic recovery is underway', it warned that she would have to do more to raise cash or cut spending. The chancellor is already expected to raise taxes in the autumn after U-turns on winter fuel and welfare cuts combined with deteriorating forecasts left her facing a gap of £20 billion or more in public finances. With the government now facing months of speculation about how she will plug it, the IMF recommended raising even more cash in the budget to give herself more headroom against her fiscal rules and prevent a repeat next year. The IMF said the 'first best' option to reduce the need for constant tax and spending tweaks would be 'to maintain more headroom under the rules, so that small changes in the outlook do not compromise assessments of rule compliance'. It also suggested moving to one official assessment a year of whether Reeves is on target to hit her rules, instead of the two carried out by the Office for Budget Responsibility. However, in a warning to those hoping this would reduce the need for tax rises or spending cuts, the IMF warned that Britain's ageing population and high debt interest bill mean Reeves cannot avoid such painful choices in the long term. 'Unless the authorities revisit their commitment not to increase taxes on 'working people', further spending prioritisation will be required,' its report said. The IMF urged Reeves to press ahead with welfare reforms that have proved toxic with Labour MPs and replace the triple lock with a cheaper policy that would increase state pensions in line with the cost of living. 'Access to public services could also depend more on an individual's capacity to pay, with charges levied on higher-income users, such as co-payments for health services,' the IMF added. Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said the report showed that Reeves 'has already maxed out the credit card, her only options are to cut spending or raise taxes. The welfare debacle showed Labour are completely incapable of reining in spending. Businesses and families must brace for an even higher tax burden'. Reeves said the report 'confirms that the choices we've taken have ensured Britain's economic recovery is underway, and that our plans will tackle the deep-rooted economic challenges that we inherited'.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
There's no such thing as a ‘magic wealth tax', minister says as he dismisses ‘daft' idea
The business secretary has said the idea of a 'magic wealth tax' to raise funds is 'daft' amid speculation that the Chancellor could turn to such a measure to plug holes in the public finances. The government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the chancellor with a multibillion-pound black hole to fill, fuelling speculation she might target the assets of the wealthy in the next budget. Rachel Reeves has not ruled out the possibility of a new wealth tax but has been eager to highlight that she will stick to her commitment not to hike tax for 'working people'. Some in the Labour Party, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock and Wales's first minister Baroness Eluned Morgan, have called for a wealth tax. However, business secretary Jonathan Reynolds dismissed the idea. 'This Labour government has increased taxes on wealth as opposed to income – the taxes on private jets, private schools, changes through inheritance tax, capital gains tax,' he told GB News. 'But the idea there's a magic wealth tax, some sort of levy… that doesn't exist anywhere in the world. 'Switzerland has a levy but they don't have capital gains or inheritance tax. 'There's no kind of magic (tax). We're not going to do anything daft like that. 'And I say to people: 'Be serious about this.' The idea you can just levy everyone… What if your wealth was not in your bank account, (what if it was) in fine wine or art? 'How would we tax that? This is why this doesn't exist.'
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Reynolds rejects ‘daft' Left-wing calls for wealth tax
Jonathan Reynolds has rejected 'daft' calls for a wealth tax from Left-wing Labour MPs as the Treasury faces pressure to fill a £30bn black hole in the public finances. The Business Secretary told backbenchers to 'get serious' about proposals for such a levy which experts have warned would burden Britain's middle class. Dozens of Labour MPs have called for a debate on a wealth tax ahead of the autumn Budget, suggesting such a move would be 'a fairer alternative to cuts' in public spending. It comes as Rachel Reeves faces pressure to raise taxes to balance the nation's books, with some economists warning she could face a £30bn shortfall later this year. Speaking to GB News, Mr Reynolds said: 'This Labour Government has increased taxes on wealth as opposed to income – the taxes on private jets, private schools, changes through inheritance tax, capital gains tax. 'But the idea there's a magic wealth tax, some sort of levy ... that doesn't exist anywhere in the world. 'Switzerland has a levy, but they don't have capital gains or inheritance tax. There's no kind of magic ... We're not going to do anything daft like that. 'And I say to people: 'Be serious about this.' The idea you can just levy everyone ... What if your wealth was not in your bank account, what if it was in fine wine or art? How would we tax that? This is why this doesn't exist. 'There's a lot of populism out about this, and I'm frustrated. I see colleagues sometimes say this in Parliament and I say: 'Come on, get serious.'' Labour dissidents MPs including Diane Abbott, who was suspended by the party earlier this month over her comments on racism, have suggested the Government should impose a tax of 2pc on people with assets over £10m. Labour backbenchers Richard Burgon, Imran Hussain, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Kate Osborne, Kim Johnson and Ian Byrne this week sponsored an early day motion (EDM) in support of the tax, which is backed by 26 MPs. EDMs are typically used by MPs to express support for a particular policy, and are one of the first steps towards an official debate. The MPs' statement read: 'That such a measure would represent a fairer alternative to cuts and could provide urgently needed resources to tackle the poverty and inequality that blights our society – and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for such a tax on extreme wealth ahead of the next Budget.' Mr Reynolds added that he wanted billionaires to pay their taxes in Britain. He said: 'On billionaires more generally, I want talent and capital in this country. If your home is the United Kingdom, you have got to pay your taxes in the UK.'
