So, flexible working is an obvious thing for businesses to do is it?

As the CBI notes, many employers have already embraced the benefits of
flexible working, and recognise the business case; and Cameron is right
to comment that flexible working can be a tool to "competitive
advantage and commercial success". Research shows the impact on
productivity, absenteeism and turnover of allowing workers to balance
the demands of working and caring. Good employers know this, and act on
it.

Fair enough. So all profit maximising employers will get on with it then: after all, they are, as we know, greedy bastards looking only to increase returns to shareholders.

Ultimately, flexible working can open up opportunities for everyone –
not just parents – to balance their commitments at different stages of
their working lives. Which of the politicians is going to take the leap
towards flexible working for all?

So if it’s so obviously a profitable thing to do, why in buggery do you want politicians involved?

(Those puzzled here might like to look at the report from the Women and Work Commission. Amongst their 40 recommendations is that there should be a subsidy for job sharing. Because, err, job shares cost more to employ than one worker doing the same job. Thus the necessity for the policians, as the business case is not as Ms. Jackson points out.)