UKIP

[pete]

Woah there people.

You've all got a bit confused, my post wasn't criticising UKIP for their energy policy but pointing out the irony in their energy policy. Because they are fascists.

And frankly I don't give a flying f.ck what their policy is on Europe because they are fascists. And I don't like fascists, you know because I thought we (as a species) had thought really hard about this and decided that fascists were bad.

I'm not overly keen on their policies about women either, they are on record as saying that maternity leave was bad which is something I don't agree with. This is because I think women's right are more important than membership of the EU so once again i don't really care what they say about anything until they stop being all fascisty.

You see there are priorities, so if you have glossed over the racist policies and the fascist policies or the "let's hide/change that policy because someone has noticed" policy, because of one policy they do have then I think you might be a bit of a fool.

Blimey! - bit strong on rhetoric?

what policy on women do you not like? - out with it...

All I can find is a comment made about no right minded small/medium sized employer would give a job to a woman of childbearing age when the legislation around maternity pay and leave means he's basically going to have to pay two people to do one job.

I really don't see how you can argue with this? it's simple economic fact?

it's not sexist, discriminatory, or anything like that, it's a statement of the effect of the ever increasing burden on industry of dogooder legislation.

companies are not there to provide a social service for child rearing, they are there to do a job, and if that means providing employment for people, great.

That one. That's the policy I don't like.

If it's not sexist to discriminate against women what is?

(I do like a bit of rhetoric, sorry.)

[tut]

Must admit that if I ran a small business I would not employ a woman if there was a chance that she would get pregnant in the short term, and I could get a man who could do the job as well.

Does not make economic sense, and could even be done deliberately.

tut

[Claws]

So, basically, women aged 16~40 shouldn't have jobs?

Nice.

[pete]

Tut I largely agree and if it is true for a small business then it is equally true for a large business.

The only rational response then is to legislate to ensure everyone is exposed to the same degree.

The thing that frustrates me about UKIP is that I feel we are having to have the whole equality debate anew. Do we really need to debate why women should be given equal opportunities? Do we have to debate why not wanting foreigners moving in next door is unacceptable?



pete

[tut]

Agree on the last point Pete, as long as it does not mean them moving in en mass, mixing languages and religions is one thing, but taking over the complete area is another.

On the equal opportunities 90%, there should be no differentiation between genders for a job as long as they are both equally qualified, the same goes for race. But the fact is that women have babies and that will never make them truly equal in one sense of the word.

One idea would be for a woman to sign an agreement for five years stating that if she did fall pregnant she waived her rights to the maternity benefits, but that would bring us back full circle to equal rights and our friendly European neighbours with their Human Rights. Mind you a man could sign the agreement as well.

tut

[graeme]

Tut I largely agree and if it is true for a small business then it is equally true for a large business.

That's not good sums. The impact of having staff not at their desks is far larger on a small business than a large business.

Do we really need to debate why women should be given equal opportunities? Do we have to debate why not wanting foreigners moving in next door is unacceptable?

It's not the principal, it's the solutions currently implemented which are broken and need addressed.

Women should have equal rights, and being geographically, culturally or religiously foreign in any way doesn't make a person any less welcome on my street. However, the maternity pay system sucks, and our border entry policies are non-existent. Not excluding foreigners because they are foreign is not logically equivalent to allowing anyone in because they are arriving from within the EU.

[Dominic]

Must admit that if I ran a small business I would not employ a woman if there was a chance that she would get pregnant in the short term, and I could get a man who could do the job as well.

Does not make economic sense, and could even be done deliberately.

tut

I would take them on a freelance / self employed basis.

[Rosssco]

My view is that it seems you are all trying to make sense of UKIP party policies, when in fact the vast majority are simply there as a supporting act to bring in votes and give the impression of a viable political entity.

I have previously compared UKIP to the SNP. Not just because they both rely on a vein of significant nationalistic sentiment for a good portion of their support, but that they both are essentially one-policy parties, with a finite political aim (independance for their respective zones). All other policies are essentially subservant to this one finitie aim, hence these policies tend to be populist and pander to the largest democratic sentiment, with many not actually making much sense once under the spotlight of scrutiny. Whether or not they stand up to much scutiny doesn't really matter in many respects, as long as they give the party the sense of legitimacy they need to sell their vision. The SNP have been doing this for years, flirting between different left / right wing policies as political / cultural sentiment has changed. No doubt UKIP will adopt a similar approach.

They don't seem to have an ideological concept at their core (like Labour or the Tories, although both have centralised themselves) which drives them in a certain direction, instead they pad out their political manifesto with policies that give the impression of a well rounded, considered political party which has more than just a singular aim. Many a Scottish nationalist for instance insist that the independnance vote is not for the SNP, and that they will effectively deseminate in the event of independance. Well what good is that, I want to vote for a political party that has more than one political aim and vision..

[Sanjøy]

[tut]

No one in their right mind would think that UKIP could either win a GE or govern the Country, it would be a disaster. EU results always kick up the minors such as the Greens and BNP creeping in with seats from a protest vote, but they vaporise when the real Elections come up.

However this was a different case with UKIP and has been a wake up call for the main parties. Lib Dems will do better next year than they did on Sunday, but are still going to get a hammering. UKIP will not repeat this success when voters realise that they are voting for real and may even know the name of the candidate, but they are certainly going to take a number of seats. I thought that Labour would get in this time, possibly with a majority, but it seems that they are slipping backwards.

I think that if the vote was now, the winner between Con and Lab could well be looking at a coalition with UKIP as the only viable alternative if they wished to be in power.

tut

[Scuffers]

That one. That's the policy I don't like.

If it's not sexist to discriminate against women what is?

(I do like a bit of rhetoric, sorry.)

sorry, what?

that's not a UKIP policy, it's merely a statement of economic fact, no employer in their right mind would employ a women who is likely to get pregnant over a man (assuming all other things are equal).

companies are not there to provide social services but their employment policies - only a raving lunatic would push that agenda (and you wonder why our industry has taken a massive beating over the last few decades compared to the so-called third world?)

it's socialist lefty stuff like this that has seen just about all our 'real' jobs exported, honestly if you can't see that you really need to get out more.

Obviously, I am not advocating the return to slave labour sweatshops and the like, but there is a middle ground, and we are currently no where near it.

you only have to look around to see the problem, people lament the death of the coal industry, but be honest, if it worked economically today, who leaving school now would want to go and work in a deep coal mine? or a steel works? (infact, I very much doubt you could startup either in our current health & safety environment).

Wake up and smell the coffee, business is not there to be the social servcies tool for the country.

[pete]

That one. That's the policy I don't like.

If it's not sexist to discriminate against women what is?

(I do like a bit of rhetoric, sorry.)

sorry, what?

that's not a UKIP policy, it's merely a statement of economic fact, no employer in their right mind would employ a women who is likely to get pregnant over a man (assuming all other things are equal).

companies are not there to provide social services but their employment policies - only a raving lunatic would push that agenda (and you wonder why our industry has taken a massive beating over the last few decades compared to the so-called third world?)

it's socialist lefty stuff like this that has seen just about all our 'real' jobs exported, honestly if you can't see that you really need to get out more.

I despair. Are you really suggesting that our country would be better if we adopted the employment laws of third world countries?

[j2 lot]

I hear women have got the vote now too

[rossybee]

I hear women have got the vote now too

Madness.

I even saw one driving a car yesterday.

Albeit badly.

[Scuffers]

That one. That's the policy I don't like.

If it's not sexist to discriminate against women what is?

(I do like a bit of rhetoric, sorry.)

sorry, what?

that's not a UKIP policy, it's merely a statement of economic fact, no employer in their right mind would employ a women who is likely to get pregnant over a man (assuming all other things are equal).

companies are not there to provide social services but their employment policies - only a raving lunatic would push that agenda (and you wonder why our industry has taken a massive beating over the last few decades compared to the so-called third world?)

it's socialist lefty stuff like this that has seen just about all our 'real' jobs exported, honestly if you can't see that you really need to get out more.

I despair. Are you really suggesting that our country would be better if we adopted the employment laws of third world countries?

Of course not, stop trying to make out that's what i even implied.

Are you trying to deny that current rules actually prevent women being employed?

Are you aware just how many jobs in this country have been off-shored because of ever more stupid workers rights?

I guess its better to have rights and be unemployed?