Any UKIP supporters on here? What exactly are you voting for?

[chicaguapa]

I confess I don't know what the UKIP policies are, but wondered if the people voting for them could explain to me what they are please. Thanks.

Instead of small businesses taking on that burden (or even households in the case of cleaners and the like) why not open a small office in the local council that could do that for you?

Worker gets job, ask them to pop down to the local office for a 'right to work' check.

I'll be honest, even a half descent passport copy would probably get past me.

The local office could issue a certificate instead, freeing the small busines of the burden of storing personal details (ie passport photocopies, that are open to theft and subsequent abuse) and ensuring a safe and up to date system.

i don't see it as pointless to try and find out whether someone can work legally before they are hired, nor to enforce this with fines.

yes, some people will get around this. most people won't. this is an argument for careful legislation, not streamlining procedures so that small businesses are not accountable in the same way as larger ones

i would imagine that most fraud of this kind occurs with small businesses (employing people illegally) rather than large ones, though of course that may just be the image the media wants to portray

' gabsid Mon 06-May-13 10:00:20

It seems all fair enough to me. Why is there a problem with smaller business doing that?'

Because they are small?

indeed they could those certificates 'work visas'

mine had'NO RECOURSE TO BENEFITS' printed on it

'chibi Mon 06-May-13 10:07:32

this is an argument for careful legislation, not streamlining procedures so that small businesses are not accountable in the same way as larger ones'

streamlined procedures do not mean due care has not been taken, nor lack of accountability.

In fact I would be as bold to suggest a streamlined procedure is more carefully thought out, with less room for manoeuvrings or lack of accountability.

That's right Xenia - brought in about 10 or so yrs ago and meant we had to check the records of existing employees too...
It isn't just that - it a multitude of hoops you have to jump through...
and as Lazarus said takes time, money and stress that you don't need...

The small business I was involved in was my partner's -a restaurant - he worked 90+ hrs a week in the kitchen - I did his accounts and books etc on top of my full time job and looking after DCs..
One of the main reasons we sold up was we just couldn't do it any more ...one of the biggest problems was employment law...but health and safety, risk assessments etc etc on top of that meant I more or less had another full time job trying to keep track of all the changes going on there too... basically if the business paid me NMW DP would have been working for nothing - (actually even not paying me don't think DP made NMW per hour)
Storing records - full of contradictions ...small business now work for (a charity involving working with children) -is even worse...for one regulation you have to destroy records and for another you have to keep them for x amount of time ...

Lazarus - no, because I think I am missing something here. There seems to be a lot of legislation around that I am not aware of.

sorry gabsid, you'll have to expand on that one.

UKIP solicits support on a staunchly anti-immigration platform, but the UKIP supporters are saying here that it's too much red tape to have to check whether prospective employees have the legal right to work in this country?

did I read that right?

UKIP want to cut 2 million jobs in public sector, they certainly aren't going to support financing a council office that does the checking for Jo Public BusinessWoman.

The two aren't as mutually exclusive as you may think.

UKIP wish to expand a border police to some 30,000 in numbers, but they recognise that rules are stifling small businesses.

unlucky, it's one reason I employ no one. Even have a nanny (two of ours went on maternity leave) the admin is absolutely ridiculous and over the top. Even though you get the SMP back the hours and hours of time you have to put into doing the forms (and from this month employers have to tell HMRC every time they pay the person even just for one night's babysitting, not 4 times a year as before). If the Tories try to suggest they are cutting red tape people will laugh at them for that new HMRC rule alone.

The Government has consulted and supposedly has a bonfire of regulation going on at the moment which includes the law that has required licences for - cannot remember what now - but the changes are so much just tinkering at the edges. No Government in power ever really wants to do away with the massive red tape on small businesses.

When I get HMRC emails because I employed someone for 18 months a couple of year ago and am still on the mailing list I smile which such massive relief that I now employ no one at all and can ignore all that administration. Even the child benefit abolition for single mothers like I am mean more red tape as so many more people have to fill in a long tax return.

Every change results in tax payers taking on more of the state's admin.
The new universal benefit which probably is simpler and perhaps will be better - it stlil requires a long form and apparently you cannot even save your work and go back another day. Yet the HMRC forms allow that. That is a major awful problem with it. Why are tax payers given a form you can save and complete over several days as you gather your information but poor benefits claimants have to fill the whole thing in all at once?

I though t the single person allowance moving to £10k - great much less admin for employers where you have part time worker ah but not in the slightest becayse they have stupidly left the NI limit at about £7k so people between 7 and 10k are still going to be bpaying 12% NI.

They never ever achieve more simplicity because as Yes Minister makes clear to us all the more complexity the more jobs for civil servants in a very bloated state.

For those on the thread who are interested in data and a pinch of critical thinking, you may enjoy this article on UKIP and its voters from a political science point of view www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/ukip-5-things-people-get-wrong

Re. maternity rights, I can see why some find it tempting to blame difficulties and discrimination that women face in the workplace on "overly generous" maternity leave terms. However, this is fallacious thinking. Scandinavia has much more favourable parental leave terms than the UK and also less bullshit at the workplace.

For those who find the notion that a strong UKIP could be dangerous (including to democracy as we know it) ridiculous, you might find it educational to study historical cases where democracies - or stable, semi-inclusive, semi-prosperous societies - tumbled down a dark spiral. Read the diaries of ordinary people and even elites from such times. The overwhelming mass of people always dismissed the warnings of Cassandras as something that could not possibly happen to them.

Does this prove that UKIP would turn the UK into Nazi Germany? No. But it does prove that we need to be utterly vigilant about our hard-won civil liberties, not to mention expectations of accountability, some degree of rational public debate and so on. What we stand to lose is immeasurably precious and much more fragile than we like to think.

If UKIP supporters are concerned about jobs and their freedoms, it is not the EU that is menacing them, but the very party they flock to.

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make when comparing popularity of UKIP in a time of economic difficulties and political disillusion with the beginnings of Hitler's German Workers' Party. We have to be very careful with right-wing groups.

I will have a read, thanks!

If someone wants to vote ukip then what is the problem? If its a protest vote what is the problem? If someone has concerns not being recognised by one of the three main parties then why shouldn't they vote for none of the above! Surely every vote is valid, just because you don't think there is a problem with immigration other people do have real concerns. We live in a democracy and if someone wants to vote bnp or Christian democrat then that's there call.

Peregrin

Does this prove that UKIP would turn the UK into Nazi Germany? No. But it does prove that we need to be utterly vigilant about our hard-won civil liberties, not to mention expectations of accountability, some degree of rational public debate and so on. What we stand to lose is immeasurably precious and much more fragile than we like to think.

I'm just trying to remember which political parties constrained our freedoms over the last 15 years. Kettling, detention without trial, ID cards, internet content monitoring, mobile phone monitoring. Which groups are supporting greater regulation of the free press?

Could you remind me, please? And where did much of this legislation limiting our freedoms come from? Was it the UKIP policy branch (wherever he's got to these days), or could it be found elsewhere? I do believe that the loudest and most energetic newspaper supporter of statutory press regulation was, in fact, the Guardian.

gabsid

That is exactly the point I have been trying to make when comparing popularity of UKIP in a time of economic difficulties and political disillusion with the beginnings of Hitler's German Workers' Party.

Are you referring to the National Socialists?

We have to be very careful with right-wing groups.

Well, indeed. Don't want any more national Socialists going around being all right-wing and taking away our freedoms. Not after they've been so efficiently protected by our democratically elected parties.

Are you referring to the National Socialists?

Flatpack National Socialist doesn't imply that they advocated socialism as it is understood today or were left wing in their policy aims but refers to the idea of a 'national community' that they were trying to foster. In no way could you refer to the Nazis as a socialist or left wing party.

It is a bit like saying the Tory party are a party of jam-makers as their name has 'Conserve' in it.

flatpackhamster - yes, whatever they called themselves, the National Socialist German Workers' Party were the Nazis. During the depression in 1929 they adjusted their politics to win votes, e.g. emphasising their anti-communist beliefes and to solve unemployment. Also Nazi units were present locally at every level of society - he promised to improve the lives of ordinary people, that's why he was popular in the first place, not because of what happened later.

I don't think that UKIP/Farage is like Hitler, but they are not particularly tolerant towards gay people, women or the disabled.

And immigrants and Europe are to blame for the state the country in in?!

The Nazis were Socialists in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) is democratically run by its people. That is, not. Just having the name in a title means nothing.

They called themselves national 'Socialists' in order to appeal to the public, who were struggling under years of sanctions after WWI.

Once they gained power, they then proceeded to imprison and kill the real socialists, left-wingers, homosexuals, artists, intellectuals.... they also attacked unions and workers rights.

So no, they weren't 'socialist'. They were right-wing authoritarians. Calling Nazis 'socialist' displays a profound ignorance of history, politics, and philosophy.

As always it's perfectly alright to be left wing but not right wing.

Yes, Russia and Eastern Europe had a wonderful time under communism didn't they? TBH extremism on both sides is just as bad as it usually ends up with dictatorship and no freedom of individuals.

ttosca - nobody is calling the Nazis socialist, that's what they called themselves, it was in the name of their party and that's a fact.

But surely it's not UKIP who are trying to impose the same implacable rule of law on an entire continent?

As always it's perfectly alright to be left wing but not right wing

Correct, and your point is?