AIBU to think that UKIP don't just hate women, gays, and immigrants but also children?(110 Posts)
We've had another
pile of shit bit of post from UKIP today.
Firstly I am an immigrant I am here by virtue of my EU passport. Should the UK choose to leave the European Union my children would have right to stay but I wouldn't. So I admit I am biased.
There brochure says that grandparents will be given visitation rights. Being that most abuses cases will never go to court and there won't be a "track record" of abuse...shouldn't we leave it to parents to decide who the fuck we give our children to?
They want to cap benefits at 2 children. So people who lose their jobs at 4 kids can just let the last two starve right?
The brochure also promises starting out with 50/50 shared custody. Right, that's great if the majority of families were already practicing 50/50 parenting but as any regular reader of the relationships board can tell you.. There are a lot of absentee dads who are not doing the job while married to their wives. The time is not after the marriage has dissolved to let them play at being a parent so they don't have to pay child support and a woman who has potentially already given up their wage to be a sahp can just be totally fucked over while dad still has all the earning potential.
They want to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European court of Human Rights.
They state "business should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers".
They want to alter the smoking ban, because he why not give everyone working in the pubs cancer while we're ruining the country.
They want to repeal the climate change act. In fact next to immigration they've got loads of legislation to destroy the environment for future generations in the works. Whohoo.
"young British workers" - so they don't like over 40s either then?
I'm sure they'll find next week that even if they said those things they aren't party policy and anyway, you get to have baxies.
and a woman who has potentially already given up their wage to be a sahp can just be totally fucked over while dad still has all the earning potential
That happened to me..............................long before UKIP were even around.
^See, in my situation, I was the one with all the education and earning potential and ex was a SAHD and I still got screwed over when ex decided to leave and I had to give up my job to look after dc's. I would have been happy to do 50/50 care but it's a bit difficult when he's hundreds of miles away.
The brochure also promises starting out with 50/50 shared custody.
I think this is the starting presumption in many jurisdictions, so I don't think it's unreasonable. Presumably it is only a starting point, which can be adjusted according to the realities of the case.
If 50:50 is imposed, but in practice father (say) doesn't want 50%, and mother doesn't trust him to do it properly anyway, then wouldn't he (if the higher earner) pay her to take more than her share? In other words, a presumption of 50:50 might be a good way to force the feckless to cough up maintenance, as otherwise they'll be lumbered with actually looking after their children.
They don't really say what they mean by 50/50/ As theoretician says the starrting point is 50/50 now and then it gets adjusted according to what is considered best for teh child.
So that would be no change. If they are going to say that all parents MUST do 50/50 each then that is weird and unenforceable?
But yes OP you are right in that UKIP hate everyone except a certain type of white man.
50/50 shared custody makes sense, because it also means 50/50 shared responsibility. That's a good thing, both parents equally responsible for providing care for their children and both parents equally responsible for providing financial support for their children.
I agree with the benefit cap for two children as well, as long as it's not retrospective. People who have more that two children can plan accordingly, pay for insurance, or they will just have to make their budget stretch further. If JSA were related to a persons income before they lost their jobber better related to the NI they had previously paid, then it would not be a problem.
The human rights act could do with a rethink in my opinion, and it think there are so many British youth unemployed that I think it would be good for them if employers were given an incentive to employ them.
Much of what UKIP says is rubbish, and I, along with most people I think, don't want to leave the EU. But a political party taking rubbish on some things doesn't automatically mean to me that they are talking rubbish on everything.
Ptolemy UKIP also (IIRC) would like to reduce abortion rights so not sure how that ties in with the no more than 2 kids thing.
You would also still have situations where people who were financially sound had more than 2 kids and then something happened - death disability etc - and they have more children than they are provided to pay for.
I guess they could increase adoption / etc services but that would be more expensive than keeping kids with their families I would have thought?
We could also have those baby deposit schemes like they have in some parts of the world that might work.
No business or office will bring back smoking as they will be faced with huge litigation cases. That's a non starter.
The rest of your points, well afraid many many people will agree with those polices and vote for them in may.
Like it or not they are going to he a force to he reckoned with in British politics.
Tye Tories will win of course but I think UKIP will make massive gains.
Abortion rights doesn't need to tie in with a benefit cap on two children, they are separate things. People need to take responsibility for their own children either way.
Benefits that become payable after a death, or benefits that are provided because of a disability are completely different to something like child tax credits (non childcare TCs) or child benefit.
Those benefits could (and should IMO) be made much higher. That doesn't mean we need to give out extra money just because some people have children they can't afford and think they have a right to a large family.
50/50 is already the start point in E/W. People forget this is the existing presumption because it is so rarely the outcome.
Further limits on CB are floated by other parties regularly.
Residency rights will of course change if UK leaves EU. But I think it would be hard to remove residency from someone (such as OP) who appears to meet criteria for ILTR.
Ptolemy of course they do.
If people need to restrict to two children then restricting access to abortion is going to make that more difficult.
That's just obvious.
What benefits that become payable after a death?
Widowed parents allowance.
People who have two children presumably have an income already. It wouldn't go up if it was a wage packet just because another child came along, so there's no need for it to go up because it's a benefit payment.
Gosh I've never even heard of that benefit!
Can you explain further how limiting abortion rights will have no impact on people controlling their family sizes please?
Ptolemy on the logic of your last post there is no need for child related benefits at all
People who have children presumably have an income already. It wouldn't go up if it was a wage packet just because a child came along, so there's no need for a benefit payment.
You would hope it to be the case that people who conceive children have an income already, but unfortunately it isn't. As we can't reasonably deny people the right to even have one child, the benefit system does have to provide for children that can't be afforded by their parents.
When people do have children without being able to afford them, they then get benefits. It is pretty much guaranteed that they will have enough money for the two children they have, so they simply don't need more money if they conceive a third.
It shouldn't have to be all or nothing. Providing for two children is a generosity that the country can afford, but that doesn't mean we have to let people take the piss.
We have free contraception, and I never commented on ukips stance on abortion in my first post, so I'm not sure why you need to keep asking me about it.
Because you said that abortion rights have "no tie in" with a benefit cap on children.
I didn't really understand that. Because abortion is one of the ways that people use to control family size.
50/50 is the presumption and starting point already. Surely that is the best place to start? or do think that all fathers should have zero rights unless they fight through the courts for them?
There are many people campaigning for grandparents visiting rights. It is not a given and in cases of abuse I cannot see the courts allowing it - you are just being ridiculous.
Why shouldn't british workers be prioritised? Many jobs are advertised in Polish or Czech. Some are not even advertised in the UK at all. Is that ok with you? Or is it only British workers that shouldn't be prioritized for jobs in Britain?
You haven't really thought this through have you? You are just jumping on the UKIP bashing bandwagon.
I only said that in response to you, I don't know I anything about UKIPs stance on abortion.
But, if by the tiniest chance people conceive a third child they can't afford and are trying to prevent, they could just pay for it out of the money they already have.
People don't abort babies just because they won't get benefits for them. People abort babies because they don't want to have their babies.
Op, plenty of people will agree with those proposals, apart from the smoking thing which will never happen. I agree with capping benefits to two children, if you're struggling with 2 kids why go on and have a 3rd? ( or 4th & 5th in some cases )
& I agree with prioritising jobs for British workers.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.