And why shouldn’t he? Why should life be divided into work and children, with anything else considered self-indulgent or downright decadent?There are all sorts of ways, endless ways, in which this attitude is damaging to all of us. In fact, you can choose almost any social ill and construct an argument whereby the emphasis on the work-in-the-week, family-at-the-weekend model causes strain (Even those without children have family. Mr O’Neil says he wants to spend more time with his “wider family” too.)This model is at the root, for example, of the gender war, and always has been Once one parent got to work, while the other got to parent That wasn’t fair, but the solution is hardly better Now, both are expected to do both. Talk to the working parents of small children, and most will tell you that they don’t feel as though there is anything except work and children in their lives. Is this really laziness? Or is it because there’s an idea that this is time squandered? Or effort squandered? Walking is actually pretty pleasant Maybe people would feel better if they did it more. Maybe Mr O’Neil will be doing more.Maybe, instead of everyone being encouraged to work as much as possible, and being given leave not to do this only while their children are under school age, the decision Mr O’Neil has made should be considered more widely.

For sure, most people would like to be in his position, or even one very slightly like it. For many, cutting back work to three days a week would be too financially punitive to be considered. But even among those for whom fewer working hours is a real option, it is seldom taken up for reasons other than children.It is not only parents who could benefit from fewer days making paid effort and more days making unpaid effort. In fact, the dividends in terms of extra time put into fitness, stronger extended family bonds, greater involvement with the immediate community, and so on, are clear for all to see. I don’t imagine that Mr O’Neil will regret handing in his notice.

Though I bet he’ll be surprised to find it’s made him into a role model.d.orr independent.co.uk
More from Deborah Orr. John Prescott keeps a low profile these days. No longer directly responsible for transport, no longer directly responsible for any policy, the Deputy Prime Minister tends to range widely. Sometimes he seems to be ranging so widely that he is nowhere to be seen at all. Yet Mr Prescott, with his deep roots in the Labour Party and his access to Tony Blair, is still a player of some influence. He still matters.This week he made a speech of much greater significance than some of the over-hyped announcements that commanded the front pages.

While Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers were offering little detail about how the private sector would help to revive the public services, Mr Prescott addressed the thorny issue of improving standards in poorer communities. Unlike his high-profile colleagues, he linked detailed policies to broader principles. There was not much waffle in his exposition.
But what made Mr Prescott’s speech truly potent and potentially explosive was the wider political context. The words were supposed to have been delivered by Gordon Brown, who had to pull out for obvious family reasons The background to the speech was this. The Fabian Society – increasingly innovative and dynamic these days – originally invited Tony Blair to speak at its conference on social justice. Mr Blair was unavailable, but Downing Street proposed Mr Prescott in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Government’s overall approach to social exclusion policies Mr Prescott agreed, but suggested that Mr Brown came along. Under different circumstances, both would have addressed the conference.