What a pair.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....Cabinet-children.html

Are Cameron and Clegg 'modern men', modern politicians or just a couple of wimps?

What is this all about? If they wanted to spend more time with their children they should not have chose running a country for a career.

How many ordinary hard working men, have the choice to start their working day late, so as to take their kids to school, and then finish early to spend more time with their kids?

How do they think the service personnel who they sent out to Afghanistan for six months tours of duty cope?

[milliezoe]

I nominate Richard Branson and Richard Leahy to take over from them they know how to run a business ?

[jno]

you think the country can't run unless Cameron is sitting in his office 24/7? Surely his job is to make sure it can do just that? How will holding a cabinet meeting half an hour later bring British manufacturing to its knees and sink the Royal Navy?

[Gromit]

We all like to have a go at MPs, but the working times of the Houses of Parliament are stuck in the dark ages.

It may have been fine 200 years ago when the men folk hardly did any parenting, and child rearing was left to his wife and nanny, but we are now in the 21st Century. Fathers like to paricipate in bringing up their children, and enjoy seeing their offspring grow up.

If we want to attract the best men and women into parliament, it needs to be run like an efficient modern company and not a nineteenth century Gentleman's Club.

[123everton]

I like Gromit's answer and I can see the logic in it, but, this is a country not a business running it should be more about duty and service it should be viewed as a vocation rather than another job or carreer.
I can't help but feel it's a little unfair (I hate to bring khaki into it), but, we have a government that is at war abroad, the soldier can't knock off early cos it's his tea break or start late cos it's his daughters birthday.

[Gromit]

MPs claim to work a 85 hour week, with several late night sittings a month. That is not ideal if you have a family. Are we suggesting anyone with children should stay out of politics?

Better to get the best people and reform working hours to suit them. That is what all successful businesses do.

[jno]

Everton, I think Cameron will need to be on call 24/7 for when crises blow up - Russian navy off Margate, that sort of thing - but I don't think this means he actually has to work all round the clock. Bush and Reagan were famous for their early nights, and whatever you thought of their polilcies, the USA didn't grind to a halt. I wouldn't like a return to the old days when the only people who could enter parliament were those who could afford second homes, nannies and so on.

[Haggisdj]

"Russian navy off Margate", do you have a link?

[123everton]

I agree, I just feel that the days when Parliament would sit all night to deal with a contentious piece of legislation were notable.
Now, bills can be run out (I presume) a lot easier.
I'm of the opinion that they are there to serve us not themselves, but I'm not that arsed about it.

[Zeuhl]

I sacrificed time with the children for career and business travel.

And when I was at home I was often too stressed to give them my best.

This is now one of my greatest regrets, mainly because the business issues that seemed so important at the time are now forgotten and seem insignificant with the passage of time.

I don't see why wanting a different balance in one's life equals whimpishness. Now, if a colleague says "that's enough for today, the task will still be there tomorrow and I'm going home to spend time with the family" I say three cheers.

Our children's childhood only happens once and whizzes by; it's not to be missed.

Cameron and Clegg will inevitably put in long hours at times but mostly then can delegate and pick it up again tomorrow and they will probably be more rounded individuals for that.
.

[Zeuhl]

By the way, I've just driven into the office along the seafront and there were lots of families going onto the beach including men.

Assuming they aren't all unemployed or skiving-off they must be blokes who have managed some flexibility in their lives - and good for them!

.

[LoftyLottie]

I am with jno, Gromit and Zeuhl on this. We are living in a different era. They days are gone where the man went out and worked all hours god gave him to support a wife and family (who never saw him). That same man probably went straight to the pub after work, or after his evening meal.

Today's men value their families thank goodness and can prioritise (and delegate) Cameron and co will always have work at the back of their mind anyway, even when they are with their family. I don't envy them.

Why do you consider that a man who values his family and can combine both family and work commitments to be a wimp?

[Sqad]

Is their ANY evidence, anecdotal or sociological to suggest that the father spending more time with the family, benefits the children, the wife or indeed himself?

[Zeuhl]

Sqad

How would you measure these? what control would you use?

And why would you want to?

I enjoy scuba diving and the experiences it gives me; I have no need to measure it.

Sqad, do you ever do things you think are good and an enjoyable aspect of your life that haven't had their benefits measured?

.

[Sqad]

Zeuhl....anything can be measured.

AOG has set an interesting question question that in some way spending more time with the children would be beneficial to the family and not impairing their running of the country.
Most contributors seem to think that there would be no impairment of Political effectiveness and there may even be a benefit to the family.

Have I got this right?

If I haven't, then ignore my reply.

How would one measure and what would one use as control?
Sociological studies have been used for decades to compare the effect of changing attitudes and practises before and after and then analysed the attitudes and behaviour of the people involved in the studies.e.g in this case behaviour and intellectual development of the children.

I appreciate the pleasure that you are getting from scuba diving and presumably that is why Cameron and Legg have done this. I have no complaints about that, but my comments are based on many posters widening the discussion to involve "benefits"

As for your last question, the answer is yes, but once again, I am answering the posters opinions as well as the questioners.

[Zeuhl]

Point taken Sqad;

my comments were based on my perception that time spent with family (or on personal interests) had a value as an enhancement to life that for many of us has been subjugated by work, and that the apparent urgency and importance of work fades while the significance of personal life such as children growing-up becomes more apparent.

As you say, the wider question is one of 'benefits'.

My initial thought is that whilst it is impossible to quantify or directly compare social issues in the past, we do know that there are issues in today's society related to family life/mental health/stress and ill health/drug abuse etc

The extent to which these would be changed or improved with alternative integration of work/home is difficult to assess. Perhaps sociologists are tracking experiences in 'alternative' communities or anthropologists might present evidence from pre-industrial societies where work and home life are more integrated.

.

[Sqad]

Zeuhl......good reply.

Please do not use me as an example....a good example...as I put my career ahead of my family and children and probably missed a lot. However, if I had my time again, I would do exactly the same.

Odd bod or wot?

[sp1814]

I like the fact that our leaders are demonstrating how important fathers are in bringing up kids.

It's something that we should all recognise as important - the strong role models that fathers can and should be.

Good luck to 'em.

I'm beginning to like this coalition....don't expect it to last.

[Zeuhl]

Sqad

I would suggest that your continuing congruence is a better place to be than my regrets - and fair enough to you.

[anotheoldgit]

Most on here have took my question too literally, I am all for fathers giving the maximum input into bringing up their children, ie spending more time with them, and being involved in their everyday lives.

What everyone failed to answer were the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of my question.

I like to know what firms or businesses allow their employees in work after the children have been taxied to school, or been given a shorter working day so that the fathers can see more of their children.

If Cameron & Clegg think it so important for their families, perhaps they should make these measures law, then the ordinary man in the street could take full benefit from these new laws.

[sp1814]

"How many ordinary hard working men, have the choice to start their working day late, so as to take their kids to school, and then finish early to spend more time with their kids?"

Much more than you'd think. Many companies, especially in new media and IT operate a flexible arrangement with regards to working hours.

My company has a policy which allows all parents (male and female) to work from home one day a week if they have kids up to the age of four years old.

Service personnel out in Afghanistan?

What's that got to do with it? You may as well ask the same question about oil rig workers or long distance lorry drivers..

They work away from home.

They are physically disconnected from their families.

They do not live with their families, and they understand that these are the sacrifices that they and their families must make because of the careers they've chosen.