To think UKIP are wrong

[pauline6703]

People come to the UK because they are suffering abuse and disadvantage in their own countries.
I think we should offer then a safe place but UKIP seems to want to let them suffer abuse and pain. I think UKIP are wrong.
What do you all thing.

Oh yes I remembered another thing I'm not clear on. Why do UKIP not believe in climate change against all evidence? What motive do they have for convincing the public it doesn't exist - what's in it for them?

Hi Riffy. Um. What an archaic view your family member has. Is she 90 years old?
Women add a lot of different skills to the workplace; soft skills, social skills, emotional intelligence.
Diversity is good for employers and good for the work place.
It is worth the investment for employers because women will go back after their children are small and contribute in the longer term.
Women with children are more productive at work (recent study in US).
Babies will be born into poverty if maternity leave is not paid for. If mothers can't afford to have children due to lack of maternity leave, then there won't be enough children. The country needs children to be born to work and pay for the increasingly ageing population (especially if a UKIP government were to reduce numbers of immigrant workers).
If mothers are disincentivised from staying at home on maternity leave during the first year, and forced straight back to work, then those babies might be more likely to suffer attachment problems and future psychological difficulties.
Sorry that's all a bit garbled. That's just off the top of my head.

Well parenthood could be seen as a biological need as well as a lifestyle choice.

What is interesting is that when SAHMums was more the social norm most families did manage to cope financially, and there were enough children born.

Women are needed in the workplace, and need to work, as the economy is now structured around two income families. It could be argued that benefits like maternity pay serve the needs of employers and business as much, or more, than needs of families. Maybe it should be up to the employer to cover all maternity pay without reliance on the benefit system. The system provides benefits to employers in more ways than one.

More and more families have no choice but for both parents to work whether they would prefer to or not, staying at home with children is almost a luxury. It is the pursuit of profit in the economy that is driving this, not the needs of parents or children.

Never mind at least the banks, property investors, shops,restaurants etc can continue to make money(sometimes huge amounts) at the expense of families.

Riffy - UKIP have no current policy position on maternity leave. Here is what Nigel Farage has said about maternity leave in the past...

"That is something we’ve got to talk about and debate honestly. On the one hand we want women to have every opportunity to go into the workplace, but on the other we have to allow our small businesses to survive... legislation that was put in place to protect women in the workplace is now in a sense discriminating against them getting a job in the first place"

This is pretty much all that UKIP has said about this issue.

My personal view is that because UKIP are a new party and are not interested in simply parroting what a focus group has told them to say, they can open up debate about issues that have become sacred cows. The fact that women need financial support while having children is as true as small businesses needing to be free of extra costs that may befall them. UKIP are brave enough to talk about this issue, and hopefully propose something satisfactory to all parties.

'a "friend" who is very anti immigration picked up a head of broccoli and said 49p that's a bargain and before I could stop myself I retorted it would be £1.49 if it wasn't for immigrants.'

eh?
For a start the broccoli in the shops is mostly grown in Spain

'Why do UKIP not believe in climate change against all evidence? What motive do they have for convincing the public it doesn't exist - what's in it for them?'

Because it is a load of old BS. UKIP don't want to waste our money on it and don't want our industry to be tied by the regulations that are made in its name. What you really need to ask is "what is in it?" for the climate evangelists?

"The Climate Change Act will do untold damage to British industry"

"The only obstacle is the Climate Change Act, whose unilateral targets are doing nothing for the planet but everything to damage British industry. Never did a piece of legislation pass through the Commons with so little opposition – just four MPs voted against – and yet proved to be such an error."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/the-climate-change-act-will-do-untold-damage-to-british-industry/

You might want to watch this claig.

"UKIP are against paid maternity leave and believe motherhood is a lifestyle choice."

Maternity leave IS a bit of a burden on businesses.... but the alternative is that you end up with a labour market like, say, Japan.

Large numbers of women end up dropping out of the workforce for years and years (or sometimes for good), meaning that all the other workers now have to cover their pension and health insurance contributions for them. Large numbers of other women decide not to have children in the first place (because they just can't see a way to combine work and family). So birth rates plummet.

As I said in a previous post, the whole "We must have tons of immigrants to deal with the pensions crisis" is no more than slightly true for countries like the UK. But when countries have falling birthrates and shrinking labour markets, they really do end up needing large numbers of immigrants to plug the gap!

If a country feels that "we want to have modest levels of immigration," then that is completely fine and can be a valid way of doing things, but it requires a labour market setup like, say, Norway's, which has a high labour participation rate and does everything possible to keep women in the workforce.

HTH.

By the way, the US has no proper mat leave and a reasonably OK fertility rates, but that is largely because they have huge numbers of immigrants and these immigrants have unusually high fertility rates (Mexican American women have, on average, 2.7 children each). Take away the immigration bit, and America's fertility rate would be feeble.

The point is that a country can EITHER choose to have no family friendly policies and instead rely on immigration to keep the fertility rate and the number of workers high (like America), OR it can keep immigration levels modest and do everything possible to help women combine work and family, thus ensuring enough workers and enough babies (like Norway). UKIP doesn't seem to understand this trade-off!

^People come to the UK because they are suffering abuse and disadvantage in their own countries.
I think we should offer then a safe place but UKIP seems to want to let them suffer abuse and pain. I think UKIP are wrong.
What do you all thing^

That is an untrue statement. You are confusing the UK's obligations to provide sanctuary to refugees with the right of any citizen of an EU country to live in the UK and with a moral decision to admit anyone who wishes to live here for ecomonic reasons.

These are 3 very different categories of people.

UKIP will fully honour its obligations under the UN treaty on refugees and has never indicated that it wouldn't, so you are wrong in thinking they would. Farage actually called for the UK to give refugee to some victims of the war in Syria earlier this year.

Any person who lives in any of the EU member states has the right to live permanently in any of those Eu member states. And as long as we remain members of the EU we are obliged to admit any EU citizen who wishes to come here.

The third cartegory are purely economic migrants. Yes, it would be nice if we could house and provide a job for anyone from any country who wished to come and live here. But we have our own unemployed, we are aldready accommodating any EU citizens who wish to live here, so we don't have a lot of scope to take any ecomonic migrants.

But seriously, before you come on forums like this posting blatent nonsense you would really do yourself a favour by attempting to understand the issues.

Some of the hysterical over reaction on here to what people THINK Ukip wishes to do, probably fed to them by lefty media, is hilarious.

They dont want to eat your children.

Thanks for pps who answered my questions, I'm a bit clearer now. I am still a bit confused about the climate change issue - why would the majority of scientists be saying it exists unless it does claig?

I understand the morals of why maternity pay and supporting working mothers is right, but the arguments mentioned above wouldn't convince my UKIP relative. Her partner owns a small business and has never employed young women because of the possibility of him having to pay for them to have babies (as he sees it). I don't think she would care about the big picture and how it's good for society, only that he shouldn't have to bear the cost. Which seems to me to sum up the UKIP mentality tbh; selfish and small-minded.

I am finding this thread really interesting!

"I am still a bit confused about the climate change issue - why would the majority of scientists be saying it exists unless it does claig?"

Lots of scientists disagree with it. Huge topic involving UN, Agenda 21, sustainability agenda, the elite, Rockefeller, Club of Rome, deindustrialisation, population control, taxation, restriction of resources, impoverishment etc etc

Google climate change conspiracy and start at the beginning. It involves lots of things.

Your relative and partner are ignorant (and he's actually breaking the law by discriminating).

Businesses do not pay maternity pay unless they offer an upgraded package. The government pays for most maternity pay.

Small businesses have to cover the cost of the inconvenience of temporary staff, but that's very different to paying for maternity leave.

UKIP is being described as an anti-politics party and an anti-establishment party. Farage said at the end of his debate with Nick Clegg

"Join the People's Army. Let's topple the Establishment"

UKIP is a populist party for the people. The Establishment and elite are frightened of UKIP because it has challenged their sacred cows i.e. the EU, climate change and open door immigration and they fear that eventually it may challenge some aspects of globalisation (such as free movement of labour).

That is why the Establishment are throwing the kitchen sink at UKIP and the people, in order to try to halt it overturning all their sacred cows. They have called UKIP "fruitcakes", "looneys" and "closet racists" in a desperate attempt to stop people voting for them, but so far everything has failed and UKIP are tearing up their lawns.

This is the biggest change in British politics since the 1920s and a populist party is challenging the Establishment parties.

"Labour is losing is claim to be the party of the working class to Ukip, according to a devastating poll which will make grim reading for Ed Miliband.

The survey shows more voters believe Nigel Farage’s party is in touch with the concerns of white, working class people across the country than the Labour party, which has long claimed to represent them."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848526/Now-Ukip-beating-Labour-white-working-class-vote-days-Miliband-tried-win-white-van-man.html

RiffyWammal, you have heard of the "metroplitan elite", this class of Oxbridge type millionaires, MP barristers and lawyers and politicians, many of whom have never had a real job outside of politics. They govern in the interests of the elite rather than the people.

For years ordinary people had to put up with it because there was no choice, but now millions of people have switched to UKIP because it is an ordinary people's party that will govern for the interests of the people and not the metropolitan elite, and it is now begiining to be more popular than Labour among lots of working class voters.

Establishment parties are panicking at the rise of UKIP because they fear they will not be able to control the people so easily any more.

For years ordinary people had to put up with it because there was no choice, but now millions of people have switched to UKIP because it is an ordinary people's party that will govern for the interests of the people and not the metropolitan elite, and it is now begiining to be more popular than Labour among lots of working class voters.

Besides being anti immigrant, what does UKIP do for the working class? They are a Tory's Tory. Low tax, anti gay, pro business. Not sure where the working class fits in.

Claig is better informed than me but

NHS. UKIP want yo do away with the Private Finance Contracts that Labour set up that got private companies to build and run new hospitals and which will visit us millions of pounds for decades. UKIP wants the NHS to buy out the contractors, bringing the service back into NHS control

UKIP wants doctors surgeries open in the evenings and at weekends where demand got GO services exists.

UKIP wants to remove those on minimum wages from paying any income tax. It doesn't see why you tax someone on such low pay.

UKIP wants to increase the availability if apprenticeships.

UKIP wants to abolish the green taxes that push up fuel costs unnecessarily

If there is any specific policy area that you're interested please say.

Does UKIP also want to buy me a ferrari? With lower taxes, how do they propose to pay for this?

Well, the EU is a very expensive club at £55 million a day plus the occasional £1.7 billion additional payments. incidentally £1.7 billion is the amount if income tax raised in Scotland each year. So we are effectively giving the EU the whole of Scottish tax payers money.

Then there's the £1.2 billion that we give in foreign aid to places like Argentina, to India that has a space programme, to South Africa, that spends most of their handouts from us on their presidential palace.

And then there's the £90 billion that it has been estimated we have to pay in indirect payments meeting all the EU diktats each year. Plus the cost of MEPs, Euro elections etc.

When you tot it all up it's actually a huge amount of money. Money that we could spend on the NHS, to better lower waged people's conditions and to use to help countries that really need our help.

have you never stopped to wonder just what all this tax that the Govt takes off us is actually spent on? Income tax, Petrol tax, fuel tax, VAT, airport tax, alcohol tax, road tax, National Insurance........

The Govt doesn't actually let you keep a lot of what you earn.

And then there's the £90 billion that it has been estimated we have to pay in indirect payments

that obviously includes private sector expenditure, so you obviously can't come close to nixing all of that.

have you never stopped to wonder just what all this tax that the Govt takes off us is actually spent on? Income tax, Petrol tax, fuel tax, VAT, airport tax, alcohol tax, road tax, National Insurance........

of course.

UKIP needs to account for the massive loss in economic output if we left the EU under them. What's their estimate on that?

i think theyre rigged anyway

Some if those costs will fall on the private sector, but that means they will be tax deductible, so the company oats less tax, so the uk fails to benefit from that tax

We lose nothing by leaving the EU. It's a sketch to say they are our largest trading partner. the EU actually buys more from US each year then we buy from them. we are the biggest market for Mercedes cars for instance.

The BBC loves to push all the pro EU voices forecasting gloom and from of we were to leave. what the BBC doesn't report is that when Cameron visited the new Dyson factory last week James Dyson told Cameron we would be better out of the EU. The BBC loves to tell us that the CBI predict gloom if we were to leave. The BBC don't tell you that the EU gives the CBI of pounds each year and that Digby Jones, a former CZbI head Sats we would be better off out. Of course the CBI said we should have joined the a Euro. They were wrong about ghost.
I don't blithely believe everything all these vested interests tell me. I watch the news and nee up my own mine. And I have decided that the UK would be better off not giving vast amounts of our we south to stay shacked to the dying corpse of the EU, when we could be using that money to build trading relationships with the worlds emerging markets.

and as this thread was started by an OP who thought we were being mean because not everyone who wanted to come to live in Britain was allowed to

Look at today's net migration figures. In a single year the UK net immigration rise to a staggering 260,000 immigrants.

Where will 260,000 additional people live in the UK?

Where are the schools, hospitals, transport etc that an extra 260,000 people will need?

Where are the jobs for 260,000 extra people when we already have over a million people out of work?

To accommodate 260,000 people you need a new city that is bigger than Southampton.

And you will. Eyed to build a new city this size next year, and the year after and the year after that.......

That's what I call an unsustainable situation

And I no longer blame labour for agreeing to EU rules that allowed this level of immigration because under Cameron immigration is now even higher than it was under L abour! And remember Cameron's pledge to cut no DU immigration - well he failed on that too as it too has increased. And remember Cameron mocking us for worrying about high levels of immigrants from Romania - well The largest group of immigrants are, you guessed it, Romanians.

Cameron is a liar.