Senior MPs accused of damaging UK with divisive rhetoric

Senior government ministers including Amber Rudd and Jeremy Hunt are damaging the UK’s standing in the world with their divisive rhetoric, the chair of the Commons Brexit committee, Hilary Benn, has said.

The former shadow foreign secretary said the Conservative party’s annual conference was an “absolute disaster” because senior politicians portrayed an image of the UK that was insular and aggressive towards foreigners.

Indicating that such language could influence negotiations with the EU, Benn said making pronouncements about what the government would achieve from its discussions would harden attitudes towards the UK among European politicians and officials.

Speaking at the Institute for Government’s headquarters in central London, Benn said: “When I reflect upon a certain week in Birmingham in the autumn, where people of a particular political party gathered and made speeches, I thought that was a disastrous week for Britain’s reputation in the world. Absolutely disastrous.

“Because to produce headlines saying ‘Crackdown on foreign students’ – when I last checked I wasn’t aware that foreign students were a problem that we need to crack down upon, it is ridiculous to have them in the net migration target – or saying that doctors who have brought their skills to this country can stay in the interim while we train more of our own doctors – it sent a message at that point that we are closing in on ourselves as a nation. That’s not who we are, it is not what Britain is. We will thrive in the future by being a welcoming country.”

He said ministers should stop claiming they would achieve certain goals from the Brexit negotiations before they began because it would only harden the opinions of those with whom Britain was negotiating.

“The second difficulty has been people sitting there saying: ‘We are going to get the following’. Well, the 27 [other EU member states] are thinking: ‘We will see about that’ … It would be prudent to change the tone,” he said.

In October, Rudd, the home secretary, told the party conference that the Home Office would shortly consult on the new student immigration system, and on tightening the resident labour market test that companies have to pass before recruiting employees from overseas. The moves were part of the drive to reduce net migration, which currently stands at 327,000, to “sustainable levels”.

“The test should ensure people coming here are filling gaps in the labour market, not taking jobs British people could do,” she said.

Hunt, the health secretary, told delegates he would recruit more UK-trained doctors to replace those who were being employed from abroad. “Is it right to import doctors from poorer countries that need them, while turning away bright home graduates desperate to study medicine?” he asked.

Benn said that while politicians should take on board the views of many Britons who wished to see curbs in migration, immigration targets were unhelpful because migrant labour was still needed in many sectors, including agriculture and social care.

He said he had seen first-hand the vital work migrants do as he nursed his father, the Labour veteran Tony Benn, who died in March 2014.

“When my father was dying, almost all who helped care for him were born outside of the UK. Who will look after us in the future?” he said.

Senior MPs accused of damaging UK with divisive rhetoric

Hillary Clinton was wrong to keep working: presenteeism is damaging | Peter Cheese

Is coming into work when you’re so sick that you’re on the verge of collapse really something we should be praising, or encouraging? When Hillary Clinton announced last week that she was trying to work through a pneumonia diagnosis and continue her campaign schedule, her supporters were quick to use this as an opportunity to praise her strength of character. She was described as tough, determined, strong, gritty and other adjectives that suggest working through serious illness is to be admired.

It may well be viewed as heroic by some, but in reality it’s a sign of an increasingly pervasive culture that sets up work as more important than our wellbeing.

Clinton certainly isn’t the only person who has turned up sick for work recently. I suspect at one time or another we’ve all uttered the words “don’t worry, it’s nothing serious”, or struggled in only to be greeted by a concerned colleague who politely asked us to go home and stop sneezing on them.

Whether it’s guilt about letting down the team, concern your tasks won’t get covered or more likely some fear that it might be counted against you, the trend for employees to come into work or to work longer hours when they should be taking time off has been growing.

Research by Simplyhealth and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), where I work as chief executive, shows “presenteeism” is on the rise. Our 2015 survey showed that in the preceding 12 months, a third of firms reported a rise in employees working when they’re sick, and this has some pretty clear negative effects on employee wellbeing. Organisations that have noticed an increase in presenteeism are nearly twice as likely to report an increase in stress-related absence and more than twice as likely to report an increase in mental health problems among their staff too.

Hillary Clinton, back on the campaign trail: ‘I’m doing great’ – video

Greater uncertainty in the economy and regarding jobs in recent years, together with an increasingly “always on” working environment and the pressure to perform are all factors driving this trend. Many of the companies and employees we talk to cite job insecurity as a reason for increased presenteeism, with employees fearing that a competitive job market, and the growth of automation, will make them more replaceable.

But leaders and managers set the tone, and have a responsibility not just to their organisation but also to the wellbeing of their employees. As our research shows, increasing presenteeism leads to increased prevalence of stress, and there is a wealth of evidence, such as the Towers Watson 2014 Global Benefits Attitudes survey, which clearly shows that workplace stress leads to less productive employees.

So why, then, do more than half of all organisations admit that they aren’t doing anything to combat this growing problem? It may well be that they believe that promoting long-term employee wellbeing might come at the expense of the short-term success of an organisation, but it can also be a lack of awareness of the growth of a corporate culture that accepts or even encourages presenteeism.

To perform at our best, people need to be well both physically and mentally. If businesses want employees who are engaged and motivated, then employees need to feel that their organisation, their managers and bosses are supporting them, and not pressuring them to work when they are not properly fit.

How do we change this culture? It has to come from the top down. Employees won’t feel empowered to take time off when they’re sick if their manager’s behaviour runs counter to that. The second action businesses can take is to build a culture that emphasises healthy living.

Health should be promoted in the workplace, with people given the opportunity to learn more about their own health, to exercise and eat well within the workplace and beyond. At the CIPD, we host discounted zumba and yoga classes each week. TransferWise takes all its staff on annual company holidays, while the law firm Allen & Overy has GPs and dentists on site. Those are at the more expensive end of the scale, but even simple things like free fruit for staff, a perk offered by just 15% of employers, can help instil a healthier work culture.

Mental health and particularly the understanding of stress is equally important and is perhaps even more challenging. Much more needs to be done to educate managers in how to show understanding and ask the right questions, and how and where to find the right support. Leaders in this field, such as Google, have built good mental health into their culture by offering mindfulness classes to staff, while many large employers in the City, such as KPMG and Deloitte, have launched the City Mental Health Alliance, working with charities to end the stigma attached to mental health problems.

The message to business is clear; a workforce that is well, works well. Clinton may have wanted to preserve her image of strength, but she wasn’t being honest with herself. We need our leaders – in the workplace and beyond – to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing first, to set the right example.

Only then does this damaging culture of presenteeism have any chance of changing.

Hillary Clinton was wrong to keep working: presenteeism is damaging | Peter Cheese

Separated mothers and fathers are "damaging" youngsters by sharing their care, skilled claims

She argues that “When folks say that it’s ‘only fair’ for a father and mother to share their five-yr-previous daughter on alternate weeks, they suggest it is honest to the adults – who see her as a possession and her presence as their correct – not that it is honest to the little one.”

Ms Leach said when lawyers bid for their consumer to have overnight accessibility with their young children they are ignoring evidence about the distressing and damaging influence on the little one.

Leach said the rights of the child should often outweigh these of the mother and father and added: “It can be damaging to the child to divide time equally among the parents.”

Ian Maxwell, from Households Require Fathers, advised the Independent on Sunday that society had moved on from classic attachment concept when bonds in between mother and child have been noticed as the strongest.

He extra: “The bond in between fathers and children is just as critical and we would question the evidence Ms Leach is citing for the primacy of the maternal bond.”

He mentioned her argument did not accord with widespread sense was described her claims as “worrying.”

Leach has previously drawn criticism for her prior bestselling guide, Your Little one &amp Kid: From Birth to Age 5, published. In this she claimed only mothers could care properly for their children.

She has also attracted controversy following she claimed scientific proof showed that leaving a infant to cry could affect the improvement of its brain and make it prone to nervousness in later on life.

It comes as a feel tank recommended that operating fathers need to be provided the chance to perform a larger part in early parenting, via an entitlement to four weeks of paid leave following the birth of their little one.

The IPPR argues that this doubling of the present paternity leave entitlement of just two weeks should be combined with a doubling of the degree of pay out and paid at least the nationwide minimum wage.

They claim that more than 400,000 operating dads a 12 months would benefit.

Only fifty five per cent of fathers consider the complete 2 weeks off perform when their child is born and a single third of eligible fathers do not take any of their statutory leave at all. Most state this is due to the fact they cannot afford to take the entitlement.

The proposed four weeks of paternity leave would be a time period of leave particularly for fathers that can not be taken by mothers. The IPPR also argues that operating dads need to also be capable to get twice as significantly paid time off to go with their parenters to hospital scans and midwife appointments.

Kayte Lawton, IPPR Senior Study Fellow, mentioned: “New dad and mom need to have time away from operate to care for their youthful children, and to strengthen their partnership with each and every other at what can be a hugely pleasant but also very stressful time. However, this is frequently difficult for fathers since they have limited entitlements to paid depart, and so they usually assume the part of breadwinner although their companion is on maternity leave.

“Fathers who get a lot more than a few days off around the birth of their little one are much more probably to be actively concerned in raising their little one than people who do not. Fathers’ better involvement in family daily life can make it easier for mothers to return to work following taking maternity leave, which helps to increase the family’s income and lessen the influence of motherhood on women’s careers.”

Separated mothers and fathers are "damaging" youngsters by sharing their care, skilled claims

Is alcohol damaging your memory? | Open thread

Guilty pleasure? A guy drinking a pint of beer. Photograph: Johnny Green/PA

Men who drink two and a half pints a day could be accelerating memory reduction and psychological decline, a research has discovered. Some memory loss in outdated age might be caused by hefty consuming earlier in life, the investigation suggests.

Do you really feel that your consuming routines have had a detrimental affect on your wellness? Does drinking heavily put you out of action the subsequent day, or lead to feelings of depression that linger? Do you worry that your alcohol consumption has an effect on your memory, or have you restricted your consuming to prevent these health issues from occurring later in existence? Tell us about how you truly feel alcohol impacts on your mind and body, and how you counter the a lot more unfavorable elements of consuming.

Is alcohol damaging your memory? | Open thread