No he hasn't. His job allows for paternity leave so he's taken it. He can leave a capable deputy in charge. I don't share your concern I'm afraid.

...but what?

Since when does being a politician preclude you from having the same rights as the rest of us? I'm no fan of EM, but I'm delighted that he's insisting on putting his family above his job: we all should, politicians included. There's a culture in British working life that dads are a bit irrelevant and parental considerations only apply to mothers, which is horribly misguided. Fathers are incredibly important, and if part of reinforcing that message involves senior politicians exercising their rights as fathers, I'm all for it.

I don't see the problem. The country can wait.

to the O.P, grow up.

If you don't like him that's fine. But the idea that he shouldn't have paternity leave because he has an important job is just plain silly. Should he never go on holiday either? Or sleep? Or have a poo? Just in case he has to disagree with something the Government does?

Simon Hoggart calling someone else a "wuss", here's a man who from his columns can't get on train or open a bottle red without having a moan basically if he was to "man up" he would be out of a job.

not being self employed. No one gave me any paid paternity leave (grumble, moan)

The notion that the Government or the Opposition or a Big Corporation or any professionally run organisation is dependant on one person being on duty is either a) ludicrous or b) proof that it's a badly run organisation. For sure, the leader provides direction and a public face for the organisation but a good leader knows s/he needs to delegate authority and responsibility to people around him and to focus on only the really big matters.

GE didn't fall apart when Jack Welch left because there was a succession plan that put Jeff Immelt in place (and he's still there). Apple didn't fall apart when Steve Jobs was off sick because Tim Cook (whose still there and likely to succeed Jobs one day) did a great interim job.

Harold Wilson was famously quoted as saying being PM was easy because you set the policy, briefed the people you appointed as Ministers to do it and then let them get on with it. Whatever you might think of those policies, it's a smart leadership style.

Because we believe politicians must take responsibility for all the errors and failings in their Department, those same policians are tempted to micro-manage their people to try to avoid errors. Fact is, you can't.

I'm sure that had something really serious cropped up, Mr. Milliband would have been back in the Commons in a jiffy. This is real storm in a teacup stuff based on a complete lack of understanding of what leadership is about.

Partner/wife - check!

Young Family - check!

THAT'S what he's signed up for 24/7. Anything else, I'm sure he has a capable deputy.

Being part of a loving family does not make a man a "wuss".

I'd have far less respect for him if he went back to work the day after his baby was born. Apart from anything else, if my experience is anything to go by, his other half is really going to need him during those two weeks and that should be his main priority. Surely the mark of a good leader is setting a good example, and being with your partner and kids at such a time is a perfect example of - to call in a cliche - 'family values'.

Out of interest, would you also have argued that Cameron shouldn't have taken time out to mourn his father?

Personally, I want those I vote into power to be PEOPLE not 24/7 politicians.

of delegation.
We would hope that as the leader of the oppposition holding our dear Leader to account can be handled by some of the people we put in power for 13 years while he spends some time with the two most important people in his life.

and I have to admit that reading your opening post I found myself nodding in agreement (and that's from someone who is himself (myself?) due the statutory two weeks' paternity leave next April).

But, taking all the responses into account, I would now say I've changed my mind. It does make sense for politicians to have the same rights and responsibilities as plebs. Demanding party-focused automatons is unrealistic and will just end in tears.

Reasons to love the Word website number 345: reasoned debate that actually makes you rethink your opinion.

Hmm, well clearly I'm out of synch with the Massive on this one, and sometimes that's best left alone, but although the original post was a gut-reaction rant, I think I'm sticking to my guns...

The way this originally came to my attention was pretty orthodox. Modern politician takes paternity leave; commentator says "wuss"; respondent on Woman's Hour cries sexism - so far, so predictable. Having worked in various environments over the years, and having seen how both public and private sector bodies operate, I wasn't arguing with the concept of paternity leave itself, just paternity leave for Mr Ed - although that implies a special case. It also suggests other special cases and it's not too hard to come up with a few. Let's say Chelsea have a decent season and reach both the FA Cup and Champions League finals, both at Wembley, both in May. If Mrs Terry gave birth a few days before the first game, would John Terry take his paternity leave there and then and miss both? Hardly. It also must be difficult for people in the armed forces or the merchant marine to take a couple of weeks' paternity leave - just after the baby's born - if it involves butting out of a patrol in Afghanistan or swimming home from the middle of the Indian Ocean. Now some readers will say, "But that's silly, those are special cases," but I did flag that up specifically. All I'm trying to establish is that there *are* special cases - indeed, special cases of various sorts, logistical and otherwise. The original post did make clear, I hope, that the vast majority of dads fall into the "normal" category - however indispensable they *think* they are, they can take a couple of weeks off after their child is born.

This segues, sort of, into Mark JF's point above, about teams: government, opposition and big corporations are run as such and are not dependent on one person. Mark JF went on to say, "I'm sure that had something really serious cropped up, Mr. Milliband would have been back in the Commons in a jiffy. This is real storm in a teacup stuff based on a complete lack of understanding of what leadership is about."

Fair point. Mr Ed does have a deputy after all, and a shadow cabinet. In that sense, he's plainly not indispensable - which is doubtless where my gut reaction rant let me down - and if he got run over by a bus, the Labour Party would simply elect another leader. Mark JF does touch on something else however by saying that Miliband would have been back in the Commons in a jiffy if something serious had cropped up. That's hardly surprising. Given the level of ambition it takes to become prime minister or leader of the opposition - therefore aspiring to be prime minister - it would be a major surprise if any politician was happy to sit at home bonding with junior when "something serious crops up". That does make paternity leave an optional extra for senior male politicians of course - something you can do when it's quiet, but not when anything interesting is going on. Because you're special? More because having made the effort to climb the greasy pole, are you really going to mix your metaphor and sit in the back seat when you get to the exciting part of the journey? Personally, I doubt that. (By extension, it also implies that no woman in her 20s or 30s will ever be prime minister unless she had made the valid life choice not to have kids. Would she really get to Number Ten then take a year off work to concentrate on something "more important"? I doubt that too.)

There's an element of explanation here then for my initial emotional reaction: that despite the existence of paternity leave, it's always going to be a secondary consideration for ambitious, political heavyweights. For the men, it's a PR disaster if they don't appear to be loving dads, but they'll drop the nappy like a hot brick and high tail it back to the Commons as soon as something interesting happens. Consequently, the notion of the leader of the opposition being on paternity leave is easily enough to make me think, "Oh come on, are you really?" however genuine the individual concerned feels about their new kid. Broadband, laptops and mobiles also mean that paternity leave for some people is hardly the uninterrupted couple of weeks they envisaged...

But that's not quite why it made me go off on one in the first place. And rather that bore you to death any further, I'll just baldly state why, because I think I've worked it out now...

Duty and responsibility.

Personal statement: I just think that some things are more important than family. Despite the team nature of leadership described in posts above, despite the legal entitlement to leave, I believe some obligations extend beyond spouse and children. What set me off in the first place therefore was Miliband's symbolic gesture to the contrary. I also still think that prime minister/leader of the opposition are special cases - not of a logistical bent like sailors or footballers, but more in a dutiful sense.

Having gathered the responsibility of prime ministerial power to yourself - or the aspiration to such - it never goes away, It is 24/7 even though you're expendable, dispensable and destined to be a historical footnote at best. Sure you can mourn your late father, you can unwind with a whisky at the end of the day, snatch sleep on a plane to Brussels or have a spell in a Tuscan villa in the summer. I guess you can even have a couple of weeks *appearing* to be on paternity leave when actually spending every second minute on your laptop/BlackBerry and staying wired to the world. What you can't do - and what you probably don't want to do anyway - is walk away for a couple of weeks and completely switch off. Speaking for myself, I don't think Cameron/Clegg/Miliband/whoever should walk away and switch off from politics, even when their wives have children, because their responsibility to the country as a whole is the greater.

I suspect I'll get a lot of flak for this point of view, but I think this is why I reacted badly to the notion of Miliband on paternity leave in the first place and subsequently ranted - not because I think he's a "wuss", not because of the existence of paternity leave, but because for some people there are more onerous responsibilities to bear, or to focus on, than fatherhood: the security and economic wellbeing of 60 million people for example, the nukes, war, life and death.

And now I'll shut up.